IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO : 5522 of 1995 Between: Techno Electrics Employees Union, (Regd.No.A-1930/91), Gandhinagar, R.R.District. rep.by its President M.Vikram Kumar, S/o.Venkataiah, aged 44 years, R/o. Chandanagar R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Labour, Employment & Training (Labour-I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Labour, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad 3 Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Govt. of A.P., R.R.Dist-1 4 Techno Electrics, Industrial Development Area, Kukatapally R.R.District, rep.by its Proprietor, D.J.Ramesh .....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 particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not prohibiting the Lock Out declared by the 4th respondent by Lock out notice dt: 23/1/1995 U/s. 10 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, while referring the Industrial dispute raised by the Workmen Union to the Industrial Tribunal U/s. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial disputes Act as totally illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme of the Industrial Dispute Act and further declare the continuance of the lock out by the 4th respondent with effect from the date of reference of the dispute U/s. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act through G.O.Rt.No.421 dt: 25/2/1995 as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to prohibit the lock out declared by the 4th respondent from 23/1/1995 U/s. 10 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.LAXMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in this Writ Petition has become infructuous. 2. Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. ________________ G.BIKSHAPATHY, J Dated: 28-10-2004 Prv To 1 The Secretary, Govt. of A.P., Labour,Employment & Training (Labour-I) Dept., Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Labour, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Govt. of A.P., R.R.Dist-1 4 2CCs to GP for Labour, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5 2CD copies