IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4553 of 2008 Between: A. Boomanna Alias Bhumaiah S/o.Late A. Karranna (Social Welfare ) Dist. Schedule Caste Service Coop. Society Ltd., Adilabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Managing Director, Schedule Caste Service Coop. Finance Corporation , Sankshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector/Chairman District S.C. Service Coop. Society Ltd., Adilabad, Adilabad District, A.P. 4 The Executive Director, S.C. Service Coop. Society Ltd., Social Welfare Complex, Adilabad, Adilabad District, 5 The Executive Engineer (Social Welfare) Dist. S.C. Service Coop. Society Ltd., Social Welfare Complex, Adilabad, Adilabad 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings Rc No. E2/281/07-08 dt. 24-8-2007 issued by the 3rd respondent in removing the petitioner from service is as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law and in violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice and direct the respondents to regularize the service of petitioner in the cadre of driver with a consequential direction to take the petitioner back into service with all attendant benefits attached to the post. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOOSA AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} O R D E R: The 4th respondent-Executive Director employed the petitioner as a Driver on daily wage basis on 16.11.1987. The 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 24.8.2007, informed the petitioner that since the vehicle on which the petitioner was working was condemned, the petitioner’s services are no longer required. It was also directed that he should be removed from service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri Moosa Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that even as of now, the employer of the petitioner owns vehicles and the reason mentioned in the impugned order is not true. He further contends that the procedure prescribed under law was not followed and the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and other related legislations. On the other hand, Sri Ganga Rao, learned standing counsel for S.C. Service Cooperative Finance Corporation appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 5, submits that the appointment of the petitioner was on daily wage basis and once the vehicle on which he was working was condemned, it is no longer feasible to continue him in service. He further submits that the question as to whether the order of removal of the petitioner from service amounts to retrenchment in violation of any of the provisions of law, can be adjudicated only by a Labour Court, and the writ petition cannot be maintained. The appointment of the petitioner to work as Driver way back in the year 1987, was on a daily wage basis. The order of removal discloses that it was occasioned on account of the vehicle being condemned. It is no doubt true that in a reply given to the representation made by the petitioner, it was mentioned that there exists a vehicle belonging to the respondents-District S.C. Service Cooperative Society and the same is being driven by a person, as Driver, on daily wage basis. The question as to whether the discontinuance of the petitioner suffers from any legal or factual defect, cannot be examined by this Court, and the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of seeking adjudication before the Labour Court. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies by approaching the Labour Court. No costs. _______________ 04.03.2008 bcj