IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14139 of 1999 Between: Motor Transport Workers Union, Vijayawada Depot, Rep. by its Secretary D.Krishna Rao S/o. Late Lakshmi Narayana Rao R/o. Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Satavahana Regional Manager Satavahana Region, Vijayawada. 3 The Depot Manager, Vijayawada Depot, Satavahana Region, Vijayawada. 4 The Executive Director Vijayawada Zone, Vijayawada. .....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 any Writ Order, or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned existing express duty chart introduced as per the Circular No. 57/98 and 58/98 issued by the Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, as illegal arbitrary and un-Constitutional and further direct the respondent authorities to introduce a new Express Duty chart relating to hours of work of Conductors as per law after consulting with the affected workers. Counsel for the Petitioner: None appears Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY, SC FOR A.P.S.R.T.C The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare Circular No.57/98 and 58/98 issued by respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. By the impugned circular, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation cancelled the special off in respect of Conductors doing duties on the routes - Vijayawada-Nirmal, Vijayawada- Mantralayam, Vijayawada-Tirupathi and Vijayawada-Tirupathi. The only ground, on which the impugned circular is questioned, is that since special off is a condition of service, the respondents ought not to have changed such a service condition, without prior notice, as envisaged in Section 9-A(a) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the impugned action was sought to be justified on the ground that while a conductor is required to work for eight hours in a day even after cancellation of the special off, the working hours were well below eight hours on average. A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that this Court by order dated 12.08.1999 declined to grant an interim order. As more than nine years have elapsed during which period the impugned circular is evidently given effect to in view of rejection of interim order, I do not see any reason to think that the cause in the writ petition still survives for consideration. Added to this, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present to pursue the writ petition. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.12.2008 va