IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12093 of 2008 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C Employees Union Regd Ni,215/1952 Satyanarayana Reddy Marg Azamabad Hyderabad-20 Rep.by its General Secretary Mr.K.Padmakar S/o.Sri K.Rajashekar Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.T.C Musheerabad Hyderabad rep.by its Managing Director 2 The Executive Director A&B A.P.S.R.T.C office of the Managing Director A.P.S.R.T.C Musheerabad Hyderabad .....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 an order or direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ decalring proceedings No.IR2/137/(27)/2007-PO.IV dt.3-1-2008 as revised vide proceedings No.IR2/785(1)/2008-PO.IV dt.3-5-2008 ordering for recovery of the union membership subscription from the salaries of the employees and remittance to APSRTC National Mazdoor Union alone is discriminatory and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to extend the recovery of union membership subcription from the salaries of the employees who express willngness in writing for remittance to the A.P.S.R.T.C Employees Union Account through bank and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12093 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is one of the trade unions of employees of A.P.S.R.T.C. It feels aggrieved by the letter, dated 03.05.2008, issued by the Chief Personnel Manager of the Corporation, directing that recovery of membership subscription can be made from the salaries of the employees, who express their willingness. This facility was however restricted to A.P.S.R.T.C. National Mazdoor Union, which was recognized as majority union. The grievance of the petitioner is that the same facility was not extended to it, though its membership is almost equivalent to that of the majority union. The petitioner claims to have made oral request to the respondents and complains that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The impugned order was preceded by a round of litigation. The facility of remittance of membership subscription was extended to the majority union. The question as to whether any difficulty would arise, in case, it is extended to the petitioner-union also, needs to be examined by the respondents. This would become possible, if only the petitioner makes a representation. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that it shall be open to the petitioner-union to make a representation, ventilating its grievances, to the respondents, within a period of one (1) week from today. On receiving the same, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders, within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 19.06.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12093 of 2008 Date: 19.06.2008 JSU