IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8681 of 1996 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Siddipet Depot. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. 2 Sr M.A.Samad, Ex-Conductor, Siddipet Depot, Medak District. .....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 a Writ order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and in connection with the award passed in I.D.No. 281/92 dt. 19-11-1994 of the 1st Respondent herein which was published in Gazette Vide G.O.Rt.No. 254 dt. 9-2- 1995 and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: N.A. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation through Depot Manager, Siddipet Depot questioning the validity of the award dated 19.11.1994 passed by the Labour Court – II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.281/92. The second respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the petitioner Corporation in 1964. As a measure of punishment in the disciplinary proceedings, he was removed from service on certain charges, which alleged to have been proved in the enquiry. The Industrial Tribunal, on the application filed by the second respondent under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the impugned award ordered for reinstatement of the second respondent into service without backwages. Though this writ petition is filed by impleading the second respondent, the notices sent to him were returned with an endorsement “Party expired. Hence returned to sender”. It is evidence from the endorsement that the second respondent died even prior to 18.07.2003, but no steps have been taken to implead his legal representatives so far. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as abated. No costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Date: 24.02.2009 va