IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 513 of 1997 Between: M.Srinivas, S/o. M.Dharmaraj, No.194,TRT Qyarters , Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M/s. Praga Tools Limited rep.by it's Managing Director,Kavadiguda, Secunderabad. 2 The Manager ,(Administration) M/s. Praga Tools Limited Kavadiguda, Secuderabad. 3 The Assistant Personnel Manager, M/s. Paraga Tools Limited Balanagar,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 issue an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus , declaring the action of the respondents in effecting the periodical breaks even though the petiioner has been working for more than the stipulated period of 240 days is as arbitrary, illegal, capricious, unjust, and unconstitutional, being violative of Arts, 14,21&39-D of the constitution of India , and contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and the Rules framed thereunder, and consequently direct the respondent , to absorb the petitioner on regular basis by paying him the regular pay scale salary attached to the post on which the petitioner is working with all consequential benefits on par with thte other regular employees. such as arrears of arrears of Salary, seniority etc., and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SARATH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) When the matter has been taken up for hearing on 2.6.2009, neither the petitioner nor his counsel were present and there was no representation on their behalf. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted on 4.6.2009 under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Even today also, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ neither the petitioner nor his counsel are present and there is no representation on their behalf. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for default. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 4.6.2009 kpr