IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.26816, 27140 & 27825 of 1995 W.P.No.26816 of 1995 Between: M/s.Hyderabad Engineering Industries, a unit of Jay Engineering Wroks Ltd., Balanagar Township, Hyderabad, rep. by its Asst. General Manager (Admn.). ..... PETITIONER AND 1 GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTER OF LABOUR NEW DELHI 2 GOVT. A.P., LABOUR EMPLOYMENT & TECHNICAL DEPT. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 3 COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR GOVT. OF A.P. HYDERABAD. .....RESPONDENTS 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 the WRIT OF DECLARATION declaring that the impugned Act in particular Section 1(2) of the said Act granting retrospective effect to the Amendment Act is ultravires and un constitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for the 1st Respondent : MR.RAMAKRISHNA RAO SIDDANATHI (SC FOR CG) Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 : GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR LABOUR W.P.No.27140 of 1995 Between: BAKELITE HYLEM LIMITED, REP.BY ITS COMPANY SECRETRARY SANATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OFR LABOUR, NEW DELHI. 2 GOVERNMENT OF A.P.,REPSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY LABOUR EMPLOYMENT AND TECHNICAL EDUC ATION, SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD. 3 GOVERNMENT OF LABOUR, GOVERNEMNT OF A.P. ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. .....RESPONDENTS 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 order, direction or a writ more particularly in the nature of writ of declaration, declare that the impugned act in section I(2) of the said act granting retrospective effect the amendment Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner : MS.SHIREEN SETHNA BARIA Counsel for Respondent No.1 : SRI S.RAMAKRISHNA RAO (SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT) Counsel for the Respondents 2 and 3 : GP FOR LABOUR W.P.No.27825 of 1995 Between : M/s.Hyderabad Connectronics Limited represented by its General Manager-Operations Shri Mohan Hvmnbadkar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, represented by Justice & Company Affairs (Legislative Department), New Delhi. 2 The Assistant Commissioner o Labour, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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, order or direction more especially one in the nature o writ of Mandamus declaring section 1(ii) of the payment of Bonus (Amendment) Ordinance 1995 as unconstitutional being devoid of legislative competence, ultravires of the Principal Act violative of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER : It is represented by the learned Advocates appearing for the writ petitioners that all these writ petitions are covered to be dismissed in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.23483 of 1995 and batch, dated 4th June, 2007. 2. In view of the reasons recorded in the judgment referred above, these writ petitions are also dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th January 2009. ajr