IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4704 of 2000 Between: E.Sathaiah, S/o. E.Mallaiah, R/o. Bangarigadda, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District. Emp. No. 255204. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nalgonda. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Suryapet. 4 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nalgonda. 5 The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal II, 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 directions, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: (i) declaring the action of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda in issuing Proceedings No. P4/402(17)/95-RM.N. dated 29-6-1999 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) to set aside the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad in I.D.No. 131/98 (Old ID 370/94 of L.C. - III, Hyderabad) dated 15-3-1999; (iii) direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner in the post of Cleaner or any other alternate employment in the respondent organisation; and be pleased to 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 : MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 29.06.1999, passed in Proceedings No.P4/402(17)/95-RM.N by the Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nalgonda, and further challenged the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, dated 15.03.1999, passed in I.D.No.131 of 1998. 2. The petitioner was initially engaged as a daily wage Driver by an order dated 12.04.1990, at Suryapet Bus Depot in the peak season. As per the terms and conditions of the order of appointment, he can be disengaged at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason. The petitioner, along with 59 other daily wage workers, was disengaged with effect from 14.06.1990. Thereafter, when there was a requirement to take back the petitioner into service on temporary basis, he was sent for medical examination to the Medical Officer of the Corporation at Nalgonda, and thereafter, he was referred to the Corporation hospital at Tarnaka, Hyderabad. The said authorities have declared that the petitioner is unfit to hold the post of Driver in view of defective eye vision. As such, he was not engaged as a Driver Grade-II. 3. The petitioner has subsequently made representations seeking some alternative job. When his representations were not responded to, he also agitated the matter before the Industrial Tribunal by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal below, by impugned order, has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of maintainability. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation. 5. Even according to the petitioner, he was not appointed to the service of the Corporation on regular basis. His temporary appointment on daily wage basis will not confer any right on him to seek appointment in any alternative post. Though he was temporarily engaged for a period of sixty days, his services were disengaged from 14.06.1990, and thereafter, when there was a requirement to take back him into service, he was referred to the Medical Board, wherein it was found that the petitioner was having defective eye vision, and in that view of the matter, he was not appointed to the service of the Corporation. As much as the petitioner was not even appointed to the service of the Corporation, there is no obligation on the part of the respondents to consider his case for appointment in a suitable post. From the facts of the case, it is clear that it is not a case of retirement on medical invalidation after appointment to the service of the Corporation, but it is a case where even before the petitioner was appointed, he was not qualified for appointment to the service of the Corporation on health ground. In that view of the matter, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the same. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court also do not find any illegality in the order passed by the respondents, discontinuing the service of the petitioner and also in the Award passed by the Tribunal, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st January 2009. ajr