IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14789 of 2008 Between: G.Shalu E.402938 S/o.G.Gudusab R/o.Pulivendula, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Labour Employment, Training and Factories Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah District. 3 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Cuddapah , Cuddapah District. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Rayachoty Depot , Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 respondents imposing the penalty of deferment of increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect on future increments by the 4th respondent in his proceedings No.P1/1(1)/90-RCTY dt. 03.07.1993, and conforming the same by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No.St/20A(385)/99-RM 'C' dt. 28.2.2000 and rejecting the same by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.PA/20B(65)/2000-RM 'C' dt. 8.6.2000 and refusing to refer the dispute to the Hon'ble Labour Court, Anantapur Under Section- 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Lr.No.2314/Lab.I/A2/2002 dt. 14.11.2002 as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same, consequently direct the 1st respondent to refer the matter to the Labour Court, Anantapur in pursuance of the law reported in 1985(3) SCC page 189, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.A.K.MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in Rayachoti Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 29.01.1990, alleging that he remained absent unauthorisedly from 18.12.1989 to 23.01.1990. On a consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Depot Manager, the fourth respondent, passed an order, dated 03.07.1993, imposing the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent and thereafter, a review before the second respondent unsuccessfully. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first respondent with a prayer to refer the industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour Court. The first respondent passed an order, dated 04.11.2002, refusing to refer the dispute on the ground that there was delay in making the claim and that the dispute is trivial in nature. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner approached the first respondent seeking reference in relation to a punishment imposed against him in the year 1993. Even assuming that the delay occurred in the process of the petitioner availing the remedies of appeal and review, the fact remains that this writ petition is filed almost more than five years after the date on which the first respondent passed the impugned order. Therefore, this writ petition itself is barred by latches. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 10.07.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}