IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15523 of 1999 Between: Syed Hussain S/o Syed Sahabuddin, R/o 1-9-11/7, Azampura, Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secy. to Govt; Labour Employment, Training & Factories Deptt; Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Bus Depot, Sangareddy, Medak District. .....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 an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned action of 1st Respondent in refusing to refer the dispute to the concern Labour Court vide Lr.No.306/Lab-I/A1/98, dt. 6/3/98 as without jurisdiction, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Principles of Natural justice and in violation of Articles-14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to refer the matter to concern jurisdictional Labour Court for proper adjudication of the dispute in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, a driver in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this writ petition questioning the proceedings dated 06-03-198 issued in letter No.306/Lab-I/A1/98, rejecting the reference for adjudication of the industrial dispute by the Government. The second respondent-management initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and on the ground that he was arrested in connection with a criminal case and failed to report the same, final order was passed, as a measure of punishment, to treat the period of suspension with effect from 22-08-1988 to 17-05-1990 as suspension and the said period is to be treated as leave due. Disputing the findings recorded and punishment impose in the final order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner submitted a representation to the conciliation officer and the same was pursued by the A.P.S.R.T.C. National Mazdoor Union. The conciliation officer, having failed to receive the dispute, submitted his failure report dated 16-11-1995 in proceedings No.A/1762/94. The impugned orders are passed rejecting the reference for adjudication by the Labour Court by merely recording a reason “there is no proper espousal”. It is the case of the petitioner that no valid reasons have been recorded by the first respondent for rejecting the reference. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no authority for the first respondent to reject the reference on the ground that there is no proper espousal. Counter affidavits are filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, Depot Manager, it is merely stated that the dispute raised by the petitioner does not merit reference for adjudication as there is no proper espousal. From the counter affidavit, it is evident that except reiterating the stand as stated in the impugned order no other reason is mentioned. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that when the individual submits a representation, it cannot be treated as an industrial dispute merely because the union has pursued the matter. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the second respondent. Although this matter is listed yesterday and today, there is no representation by the learned Government Pleader appearing fro the first respondent. I have perused a copy of the report submitted by the conciliation officer under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. From the subject matter of the proceedings referred in the proceedings dated 16-11-1995 and the findings recorded therein, it is clear that the union has pursued the matter and submitted the representation made by Sri Syed Hussain, the petitioner herein. As much as the union has espoused the cause which is evident from the failure report submitted by the conciliation officer, it cannot be said that there was no proper espousal. On this short ground, the order dated 06-03-1998 passed in letter No.306/Lab-I/A1/98, is set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to refer the matter to the jurisdictional labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. The reference shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. __________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J February 3, 2009 SKM/MRR