IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10696 of 1999 Between: 1.A.P.S.R.T.C., National Mazdoor Union (Regd No. 3108), Rep. by its Depot Secretary M.Sudhakar S/o Narayana, Mahaboobnagar District. 2.A.P.S.R.T.C., (Regd No. 215), Rep. by its Depot Secretary G.Jaya Raju, S/o Bala Mashaiah, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No. M1/852(1)/99- MBNR, dated 30/4/1999, imposing the penal wage cut for three days wages of 332 employees (172 Drivers and 160 Conductors), who are members of the petitioners Unions as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law Contrary to the provisions of payment of Wages Act, contrary to the Minutes of meeting held on 21/3/1999 without jurisdiction, Victimisation, unfair labour practice and also violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India; and consequently grant appropriate relief; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10696 of 1999 ORDER: Both Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, would agree that the subject matter of the present writ petition is covered by an order of this Court in Tyre Retreading Shop Committee v. APSRTC and others[1]. Learned Standing Counsel would, however, request that the respondents be given liberty to take disciplinary action against the petitioners for misconduct. Following the judgment of this Court referred to hereinabove, the impugned order is, accordingly, quashed, leaving it open to the respondents, if they so choose, to take disciplinary action against the petitioners in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 29th February, 2008 v v To 1. 2 CCs to 2. 2 CD copies. [1] 1999(5) Andhra Law Decision, page 619