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 Nos.9580 & 9581 of 1999 WRIT PETITION NO : 9580 of 1999 Between: Chalasani Rama Rao S/o.Venkateswara Rao Chandarlapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mahila Milk Producers Coop. Society Limited, Rep.by its President Chandarlapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District 2 The Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, Krishna District 3 The Co-op. Sub Registrar, Milk Project, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.1 society to take the petitioner forthwith into service and to pay the backwages as per the orders passed by the 2nd respondent authority in APSE/Case No.2/96, Dt.25/01/1997 and APSE/Case No.5/1997 Dt.30/03/1998 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. WRIT PETITION NO : 9581 of 1999 Between: Smt.Chalasani Lalitha W/o.Chalasani Rama Rao Chandarlapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mahila Milk Producers Co-op. Society Ltd., Rep.by its President, Chandarlapadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. 2 The Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, Krishna District 3 The Coop. Sub Registrar, Milk Project Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to take the petitioner forthwith into service and to pay the backwages as per the orders passed by the 2nd respondent authority in APSE/Case No.3/96, Dt.25/01/1997 and APSE/Case No.6/1997 Dt.30/03/1998 and to grant such other reflief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.V.R.CHOUDARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following Order: Since none appeared for the petitioners on 28-02-2008, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, neither the counsel for the petitioners is present nor is there any representation on his behalf. Hence the writ petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ____________ 29-02- 2008 usd