IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR W.P.NO.26378 OF 2001 16-12-2010 Between:- G.Subba Rao .. Petitioner And The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep.by its Depot Manager, Bapatla and others. ..Respondents ORDER:- The petitioner herein, at the relevant time, was a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) Depot at Bapatla. He filed this writ petition questioning the order of dismissal dated 02-12-1999 passed against him by the first respondent i.e., the Depot Manager of A.P.S.R.T.C. at Bapatla and confirmed in appeal by the second respondent and in further revision by the third respondent. 2. The dismissal order passed by the first respondent and the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of the writ petition show that the bus driven by him on the relevant date i.e., 30-07-1999 was involved in an accident, which resulted in the death of a eight year old girl. Basing on the occurrence of the said incident and the damage to the bus in the said accident, the first respondent framed two charges and after holding an enquiry, removed the petitioner from service by his order dated 02-12-1999. The said order was confirmed by the second respondent in appeal and also by the third respondent in the revision. Questioning the said orders of removal from service, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Sri Sreenivas, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondents, has pointed out that the dispute raised by the petitioner is an industrial dispute falling under section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, in view of that State Amendment, the petitioner can directly approach the concerned Industrial Court or Tribunal and this Court cannot entertain this writ petition. 4. A perusal of Section 2-A read with the State Amendment would show that the petitioner’s remedy lies in directly approaching the concerned Industrial or Labour Court having jurisdiction over the matter to agitate his case and in view of this, it follows that this Court has no jurisdiction. 5. It should however be noted that this writ petition is of 2001 and dismissal order passed by the first respondent is 2-12-1999 and it was ultimately confirmed by the order of the third respondent in revision on 10-04-2001. More than nine years have passed since then and the legal position stated above now shows that this Court cannot entertain this petition and the petitioner has to work out his remedies before the Labour Court concerned. It is seen that the petitioner is not aware of this legal position and he has been advised to file this writ petition, which is not maintainable, and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner acted deliberately in filing this writ petition, which is a wrong remedy. In view of this, the petitioner is at liberty to move the concerned Labour Court for adjudication of this dispute and as and when the petitioner files an application before the Labour Court concerned, the said Court shall entertain the said application and dispose of the matter. This arrangement is made as the other side counsel has no objection for the same. 6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. No costs. ___________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR ,J 16th December 2010 AMD