APHC010020862003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12543/2003 Between: 1. M.PAPA RAO VISAKHAPATNAM, S/O. LAKSHMU GENERAL SECRETARY SHIPYARD CONTRACT LABOUR UNION, R/O.D.NO. 71-31, JAI ANDHRA COLONY KAKARA LOVA,GANDHI GRAM-POST, MALKAPURAM, 2. G.PRASAD, S/O G.PYDAIAH CONTRACT LABOUR, R/O.D.NO. 71-31- 1359/1, KAKARA LOVA, JAI ANDHRA COLONY, GANDHIGRAM- POST, MALKAPURAM, 3. M.NARAYANA RAO, S/O.M.RAMA RAO CONTRACT LABOUR, R/O.BILLALA VALASA VILLAGE KERATAM POST, BONDAPALLI MANDAL, ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR HINDUSTAN S LTD VISKHA, HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LTD. GANDHIGRAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE, SECUTIRY FORCE (P) LTD., BADAM SAHANA APARTMENTS, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, HYDERABAD. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, AGRICULTURE SSECURITY FORCE (P) LTD., NEAR 4TH TOWN P.S. BALAYYA SASTRY LAYOUT GURUDWAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. AS PER COURT ORDER DT 18/8/10 CASE AGAINST R-3 DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT 4. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISISONER, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the respondents going to be terminate the services of the petitioners and members of the shipyard contract labour union Regd.NO.D-973/88 ignoring their continuous service for a period of 4 years as illegal, arbitrary and also contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court and consequently direct the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioners and other members of the shipyard contract labour union and to pass. IA NO: 2 OF 2003(WPMP 15605 OF 2003 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to continuing the services of the petitioners and other members of shipyard contract labour union Regd.NO.D-973/88,pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M VISWANADHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V HARI HARAN 2. HARINATH N (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) 3. D RAVISHANKAR RAO The Court made the following order: It is brought to the notice of this Court that, as the petitioner’s counsel died, this court ordered notice to the sole petitioners. The endorsement of the Registry shows that the notice sent to Petitioner no.1 was returned with an endorsement ‘Insufficient address for want of full Door Number & Mobile Number hence return to the sender’, in so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, it was returned with endorsement ‘Addressee expired’ and for the 3rd petitioner, it was returned with an endorsement ‘Insufficient Address’. When the matter is pending consideration, the petitioners shall invariably pursue the matter. Despite the same, it shows that the petitioners have no interest in prosecuting the matter. Since the matter is of the year 2003 and the petitioners are having no interest in prosecuting the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. If at the petitioner feels that the cause in the writ petition still survives, he/she shall move appropriate application within two(02) months. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed. ______________________ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J BRS