IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15797 OF 1999 Between: 1 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2 Dy. Chief Signal & Telecommunication Engineer, Railway Electrification, Vijayawada. 3 District Signal & Telecommunication Engineer, Railway Electrification, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Sri P.Sattaiah, Casual Labour Kazipet. (disd for default as per court order dt.13/3/03) 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I 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 order or direction more particularly in nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records relating to the order passed by the Labour Court, Hyderabad in CMP.No.18 of 1988 dt.17/11/93 and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.S.VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the Officers of the South Central Railway challenging the order dated 17-11-1993 in C.M.P.No.18 of 1988 passed by the Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad which was passed at the instance of respondent No.1 - Casual Labour / Khalasi under the Signal Inspector/Stores of Railway Electrification, Kazipet. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it came to light that the writ petition was dismissed for default as against respondent No.1 - workman by the order of this Court dated 13-03-2003 and no steps have been taken by the petitioners to remedy it. In the light of the dismissal of the writ petition as against respondent No.1, who is the contesting respondent, being the petitioner in C.M.P.No.18 of 1988 on the file of the Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, this writ petition cannot be adjudicated on merits. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J June 26, 2009. KTL