IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25701 of 2008 Between: Y.S. Narayana S/o. Muthaiah R/o. H.No.7-8, Near MRO Office, Luxettipet, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Mancherial Depot, Mancherial, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 27.7.2007 made for release of the back-wages and other attendant benefits is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent to release the back-wages and other attendant benefits to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKATESHWAR VARANASI Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.25701 of 2008 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though the Labour Court vide award, dated 12.02.1997, passed in I.D.No.50 of 1994, directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate him into service with continuity of service and 50% back-wages, the respondent-Corporation has not paid the back-wages so far, in spite of making a representation on 27.07.2007. As against the impugned action of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy by filing appropriate application before the Labour Court for execution of its award, dated 12.02.1997, passed in I.D.No.50 of 1994, but the petitioner without availing the said remedy, has approached this Court. In view of availability of alternative remedy, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner may avail the alternative remedy by filing appropriate application before the Labour Court for execution of its award, dated 12.02.1997, passed in I.D.No.50 of 1994, and on such application being filed, the Labour Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25.11.2008 VGB