IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 9725 of 1999 Between: Mr. G.S. Prakash Rao, S/o Venkat Satyanarayana, R/o 15-49, NewMirzalaguda Mulkajgiry, Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Addl.Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court, Chandravihar Bhavan, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Blue Star Ltd., Rep. by its Genl. Manager (Dpt) 2-2447, Bolaram Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorary and call for record in M.P.No.49/96 on the file the Addl.Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl.Labour Court, Hyderabad and quash the order dt.23-10-96 Consequently allow the petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.HARI HARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 9725 of 1999 ORDER: 1 Petitioner who was working with the second respondent approached the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and filed I.D.No.49 of 1996 under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) claiming that he is a semi skilled worker and he is entitled for payment of conveyance allowance. The Tribunal, having considered the evidence on record and also the submissions made by both the counsel came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (S) of the Act, but however, he is not entitled for payment of conveyance allowance and accordingly passed an order dated 23.10.1998. The same is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2 Heard both sides. 3 The bus pass facility i.e. the conveyance allowance was given to the semi skilled workers who were attached to the materials department and were attending to the repairs or installation of refrigerators at the customer’s place. However, as the company closed down its sales of refrigerators with effect from 31.3.1993, in my considered view, the petitioner cannot claim the said conveyance allowance. When once the company itself stopped the sales and installation of refrigerators, it cannot be said that the petitioner is still entitled for payment of bus pass facility i.e. conveyance allowance. The tribunal had gone into this aspect in detail and in my considered view, the said finding of the Tribunal appears to be correct and the same needs no interference. 4 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------- 08.06.2009 kvsn