IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1665 of 2002 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mushirabad, Hyderabad, Represented by its Managing Director and another. … Petitioner And K.Mallaiah, E.255654, Conductor, APSRTC, Yadagirigutta Bus Depot, Nalgonda District and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1665 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned award dated 23.02.2001, made in I.D. No.42 of 1998 by the Labour Court-III Hyderabad, published on 20.04.2001 setting aside the order of removal dated 31.07.1997 and directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits including 50% of the back wages and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid. The 1st respondent herein, who was a Conductor, suffered with a order of removal from service and raised I.D. No.42 of 1998 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The Labour Court, vide its award dated 23.02.2001 set aside the order of removal dated 31.07.1997 and directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits including 50% of the back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, A.P.S.R.T.C., filed the present writ petition. This Court on 31.01.2002 while ordering Rule nisi and on submission of the learned standing counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent-workman has already been reinstated into service, granted interim stay of execution of the impugned award relating to payment of back wages, on condition of the petitioner depositing half of the back wages awarded by the Labour Court, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of the order. Further, on deposit, the 1st respondent-workman was permitted to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security. On 18.08.2010 the learned counsel for the petitioners was permitted to take out personal notice to the 1st respondent by registered post with acknowledgement due and file proof of the service. In default, the writ petition stands dismissed as against the 1st respondent, without further reference to the Court. From a perusal of the proceedings, it is evident that order dated 18.08.2010 has not been complied with, hence, the writ petition, as against the 1st respondent, was dismissed and when the matter was posted on 16.11.2010, there was no representation and even today also, when the matter is called, there is no representation. Therefore, the matter is liable to be dismissed for default. In view of the above and as the writ petition is already dismissed as against the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent, Labour Court, is formal, I do not see any justifiable reason to keep the matter pending for adjudication on merits. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 24.11.2010 LSK