IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13896 of 1999 Between: P.R.K. Saibaba S/o Natarajewara Rao R/o MIG.1876, B.H.E.L., Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. rep. by Secretary Labour Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Factories A.P., Hyderabad 3 The Asst. Inspector of Factories Jeedimetla, Hyderabad 4 Mr. P.V.K.Reddy, M.D. P.V.K.Engineers Plot No.23, Phase-IV, I.D.A., Jeedimetla, Hyderabad .....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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Memo No.D.Dis.B3/11217/99 dt: 21-5-99 for withdrawal of the prosecution against the 4th respondent, as highly illegal, arbitrary, voilative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and without any jurisdiction and also contrary to the provisions of the factories Act and consequently set aside the order made in S.T.C.No.215/96 dt: 26-5-99 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchel Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri P.Swaroop Reddy, J.) This writ petition is filed against the orders of withdrawal of prosecution against the 4th respondent in S.T.C.No.215 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal. The case of the petitioner is that the son of the petitioner, who was working as an Engineer in the 4th respondent company at Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, died in an accident that took place in the company on 2.9.1996 when the workers were lifting atmospheric relief valve weighing nearly 800 K.Gs. and while lifting the same, the valve body got imbalanced and fell on the son of the petitioner on account of which he died. Thereafter, an inspection was conducted by the factories authorities and it was found that the 4th respondent failed to prevent unsafe method of slinging of the body of the atmospheric relief valve weighing nearly 800 K.Gs. to the chain pully block with chain sling on account of which the accident occurred and that the 4th respondent failed to inform the authorities within 12 hours of the accident. The 3rd respondent filed a complaint about the accident and the same was taken on file as S.T.C.No.215 of 1996 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medchal. The petitioner was not paid any compensation, but later he came to know that the case was closed by order dated 26.5.1999 as the complainant filed memo for withdrawal of the case and the accused was acquitted under Section 257 Cr.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent having been influenced by the 4th respondent issued proceedings for withdrawal of prosecution against the 4th respondent, which is illegal and arbitrary. The writ petition is filed for issuing writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing memo No.D.Dis.B3/11217/99, dated 21.5.1999, for withdrawal of the prosecution against the 4th respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and without any jurisdiction. In the circumstances, Mandamus may not lie, however we are not on that technicality. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not at all paid any compensation on account of the death of his son and the withdrawal of the prosecution against the 4th respondent is illegal and arbitrary. First of all the petitioner has to file a criminal revision against the order of withdrawal of the prosecution. Secondly, the main grievance of the petitioner is that on account of withdrawal of the prosecution his right for claiming compensation had been affected. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of the withdrawal of the prosecution his right to claim compensation would be affected, is unfounded. Irrespective of the withdrawal of the prosecution, the right of the petitioner for claiming compensation under the relevant Rules would subsist. In such circumstances, we make it clear that the withdrawal of the prosecution against the 4th respondent shall not in any way affect the right of the petitioner for compensation under appropriate provision of law. We also make it clear that the question of limitation shall not come in the way for claiming compensation in view of the pendency of this writ petition and limitation shall start from the date of disposal of this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of confirming the impugned order with above observation. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 23.6.2009 kpr