IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23253 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Thiruvuru Depot, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri N.Krishna Arjuna Rao, S/o. Sri Subbaiah, C/o. Ramdev Tent House, Choutra Centre, Guntur Town, Guntur District. (R.1 Dismissed for default vide Court Order dt.10-9-2003) 2 The Labour Court, Guntur, 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 call for the records relating to the award in I.D.No.258/96 dated 12-4-1999, on the ﬁle of the Respondent No.2 herein and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal by way of issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other proper writ or order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23253 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Depot Manager, Thiruvuru Depot, Krishna District, questioning the award dated 12.04.1999 passed in I.D.No.258 of 1996 by the Labour Court, Guntur. 2. In the year 1996, the 1st respondent, who was working as Conductor in the petitioner Corporation, was made to retire from service compulsorily on medical grounds, as he was found unfit in the medical examination, for holding the post of Conductor due to post-polio paralysis of lower limb. The 1st respondent challenged the same before the Labour Court, Guntur, by ﬁling an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity ‘the I.D. Act’), in I.D.No.258 of 1996, and the Labour Court, by the impugned award dated 12.04.1999, set aside the order passed by the management and directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service, but without backwages. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Corporation ﬁled the present writ petition. 3. It is to be noticed that, by order dated 10.09.2003, 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 the award is questioned on several grounds, no relief as sought for can be granted in this writ petition. Further, from the pleadings on record, it is evident that the workman suﬀered disability during his employment and as such there is a protection conferred under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. In that view of the matter also, it was not open for the petitioner Corporation to dispense the services of the 1st respondent, as the said Act applies to the organization like that of the petitioner Corporation. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not ﬁnd any merit in the writ petition. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 28th August, 2008 IBL