IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19801 of 1999 Between: 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Siddipet, Medak District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Abdul Sukkur, S/o. Abdul Quayyum, Moinapur, Siddipet, Medak District. (Dismissed for default as per Court Order dt.13-3-03 as against R1) 2 Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer. .....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, especially in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned award Dt: 21-4-99 made in I.D.No.14/96, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad published on 7-6-99, setting aside the alleged oral order of termination of the alleged services of the 1st Respondent and directing his reinstatement into service with continuity of service though without back wages and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid, and pass such other order or orders just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.19801 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award dated 21.04.1999 passed in I.D.No.14 of 1996 by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. 2. Respondent No.1 herein ﬁled a claim petition in I.D.No.14 of 1996, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the I.D. Act’), before the Labour Court- II, Hyderabad, questioning the termination of his services by the petitioner management. Before the Labour Court, it was the case of the 1st respondent that he was appointed in the petitioner Corporation on 24.05.1991 as a cleaner on casual basis and worked continuously for a period of about two years, but however, his services were terminated without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Labour Court found that the termination of the services of the 1st respondent-workman is in violation of the provisions of the Act and, accordingly, directed the management to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioner- Corporation. 4. It is to be noted that, by order dated 13.03.2003, the writ petition was dismissed for default so far as the 1st respondent- workman is concerned, and no steps have been taken against such dismissal order. In that view of the matter, though it is argued in this writ petition that the 1st respondent, in whose favour the award was passed, was not a regular workman, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 25th August, 2008 IBL