IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1366 OF 2009 Dt.25.11.2009 Between: G.S. Prakasha Rao … Appellant And The Add. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chandravihar Bhavan, M.J. Road Hyderabad and another … Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Sri V. Hari Haran Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.P. for Labour Counsel for the RespondentNo.2: Sri P. Nageswara Sree THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1366 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) The appellant – original petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dt.8.6.2009 in Writ Petition No.9725 of 1999. Being aggrieved by discontinuation of the facility of bus pass, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court did not agree with the demand with regard to the facility of bus pass and therefore by an Award dt.23.10.1998, the Additional Industrial Tribunal- cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, had dismissed M.P. No.49 of 1996 filed by the appellant – petitioner. The case of the appellant – petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioner was entitled to bus pass facility, which had been given to him in the past and which had been discontinued subsequently. The learned Single Judge heard the learned Advocates and upon perusal of the Award came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to the facility of a bus pass. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and have also gone through a copy of the Award of the Labour Court and the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and upon perusal of the record, we do find that in the past bus pass facility was given to the appellant because of certain service conditions. It appears that respondent No.2 – employer – Blue Star Limited was formerly manufacturing refrigerators and for the purpose of installation and repairs of the refrigerators supplied by the respondent – employer, the appellant had to visit places of customers and therefore the facility of a bus pass was given. Subsequently, the respondent – employer stopped manufacturing refrigerators and therefore it was not necessary for the appellant to travel so as to install or repair refrigerators. In the circumstances, the facility of bus pass was discontinued. It was the case of the learned Advocate for the appellant before the learned Single Judge that even though the company stopped manufacturing refrigerators, the appellant had to travel to repair or install refrigerators and therefore the appellant should be given a bus pass. The learned Single Judge was not impressed by the said contention for the reason that as the company stopped sales and installation of refrigerators, the petitioner was not required to visit different places as he used to in the past. Even we do not find any reason for which the appellant should be given a bus pass if he has not to visit customers of the employer. It is also relevant to note that the Labour Court has observed that: “Normally the workmen are not provided with bus passes and the learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted the same during the course of arguments.” Thus, it is an admitted fact that in normal circumstances, bus passes are not given to the workmen. It appears that for some time the facility of bus pass was given and later it was discontinued as the respondent company stopped manufacturing refrigerators. For the aforestated reasons, we do not think that the appellant is entitled to bus pass facility and therefore we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25.11.2009 bnr