IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28091 of 2005 Between: BHEL Telugunadu Employees Union (Regd.No.A-810), Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad-32, Rep by its Senior Working President Mr.S.Raju. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Labour & Election Officer, RR.District. Zone, Govt of A.P., T Anjaiah Bhavan, R.T.C.-' X' Roads, Hyderabad-20. 2 The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Govt of A.P., T.Anjaiah Bhavan, R.T.C. ' X ' Roads, Hyderabad-20. 3 The General Manager (HR & TA), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad-32. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: None appears for the petitioner. Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Sri S.V. Bhatt The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in order to meet the ends of justice for adequate and appropriate relief under the set of circumstances firstly to direct the respondent No.3 of BHEL Management to arrange one seat in the BHEL Joint Committee to the Petitioner Union as it was polled about 9.78% of votes rounded off to 10% as per the Corporate guidelines and also thus continue the participation by our union sever since 15.06.2001 and secondly to provide a full- fledged Union Office to the Petitioner Union and thirdly to issue Union Movement Passes as per the previous as well as the existing concrete convention and as a profound precedent and as the well-settled practice.” When the case came up on 02.07.2008, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the case was adjourned for today. Even today, at the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel representing respondent No.3, submitted that to a substantial extent the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration, because the term for which the elections took place in the year 2005 expired in the year 2007 and that fresh elections were held in which the petitioner Union got 24.68% of votes making it eligible to be represented by one representative in the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Joint Committee Meetings. Since no one is present to controvert the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.3, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous and also for non-prosecution. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP Nos.36028 of 2005, 12540 and 13405 of 2006 are dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 3rd July, 2008 vrn