IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16444 of 1999 Between: The Andhra Pradesh Diary Development Cooperative Federation Limited., Rep.by its Manging Director. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II Hyderabad. 2 K.Hanutha Rao, C/o Gudivada Kaji Rao, Vijaya Lakshmi General Srores, Peravali, West Godavari District. ( Dismissed Default as per the Court Order dt 13-3-03 as agianst R2) .....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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of certiorari to call for the records and to quash the proceedings No.PG/2/98 dt 18.6.99 issued by the 1st Respondent herein by declaring the same as arbitrary illegal, and without jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:M.DILIP RAO(SC FOR APDDCFL) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed against the order, dated 18.6.99, passed by the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. By the said order, the first respondent Controlling Authority has ordered payment of an amount of Rs.32,279-17ps in favour of the second respondent. This court by order, dated 13.3.2003 has already dismissed the writ petition insofar as second respondent is concerned, who is a necessary and proper party to the writ petition and in whose favour the Controlling Authority has ordered payment of amount. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition against the second respondent as early as on 13.3.2003, no relief can be granted to the petitioner by examining the validity of the order, dated 18.6.1999. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd January, 2009 PNV