THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1729 of 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Ramesh Ranganathan, J) When the matter was called on 7.7.2008, the learned counsel for the respondent was absent in the forenoon. The matter was passed over and called at 2-15 p.m. Even at 2-15 p.m. the learned counsel for the respondent was absent and as such the matter has been posted today for “Orders”. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3334 of 2000, dated 11.8.2000 seeking issuance of bus pass warrants on par with other trade unions. It was held therein that no material evidence was available on record regarding entitlement of Trade Union Leaders to bus pass warrants, but, if the other trade union leaders were being provided with bus pass warrants, there was no point in discriminating against the General Secretary of the petitioner’s union and disentitle him from claiming the privilege of such bus warrant. The learned Single Judge directed the Corporation to issue bus pass warrant to the General Secretary of the petitioner’s union, if the circular permit them to do so. Mr C. Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant- Corporation, draws the attention of this Court to Circular No.PASSED-7/1999, dated 14.1.1999, wherein clause 2.10 provides that bus warrants are required to be issued to eligible persons belonging to recognized unions. Learned Standing Counsel would point out that, since the Circular extends the benefit of issuing bus warrants only to certain office bearers of recognized unions and, as the respondent union was a minority union and not a recognized union, the Circular did not confer any right on the respondent-petitioner to claim that they should also be issued bus passes. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge has resulted in the respondent seeking each and every circular of the Corporation. In so far as issuance of circulars are concerned, the circulars issued by the Corporation are for the benefit of the employees of the Corporation and there is justification in denying furnishing copies of the said circulars provided, of course, the appellant is ready and willing to pay the prescribed charges for being furnished copies of such circulars. As such, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in this regard. With regards issuance of bus pass warrants, the matter, however, stands on a different footing. The Circular dated 14.1.1999 makes it clear that bus warrants are required to be issued only to recognized unions. Since, admittedly, the respondent union is not a recognized union and represents a small number of employees of the appellant-Corporation, the General Secretary of the respondent is not entitled to seek issuance of bus pass warrants on the plea of discrimination. The Order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above and the Order to the limited extent the appellant was directed to provide bus pass warrants to the respondent-petitioner is set aside. The Writ Appeal is partly allowed. However, without costs. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 8.7.2008 CHV