APHC010032672004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 14189/2004 Between: 1. BIKKAVOLU APPARAO, W.G.DISTRICT., S/O B.SURYA NARAYANA, CONDUCTOR E.NO.700675, R/O D.NO.8-125, SAMISRAGUDEM, NIDADAVOLE MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT-534 302. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE APSRTC BY MANAGING DIRECTOR HYD ANOTHER, REP., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD-20. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C.,NIDADAVOLU DEPOT, WEST GODAVARI 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 call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings Office Order No.P1/255(2)/2003-NDD Dt.01-10-2003 of the 2nd respondent dis-engaging the services of the petitioner with effect from 01-10- 2003 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, untenable, contrary to law, discriminatory in violation of principles of natural justice, amounts to unfair labour practice, in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-N of the 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.14189 of 2004 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set -aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) 2. R MANMADHA REDDY The Court made the following: 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.14189 of 2004 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Petition No.14189 of 2004 ORDER: Present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “…pleased to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring proceedings-Office Order No.P1/255(2)/2003-NDD, dated 01.10.2003 of the 2nd respondent dis-engaging the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.10.2003, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, untenable, contrary to law, discriminatory in violation of principles of natural justice, amounts to unfair labour practice, in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set - aside the same….” 2. In pursuance to notification issued by the respondents Corporation for filling up of vacancies of Conductor posts, petitioner has been sponsored through District Employment Exchange, and accordingly, has been selected and posted as Conductor Grade-II. The said engagement as casual Conductor was on daily wage basis. Later, his services came to be disengaged on 01.10.2003 by impugned proceedings. Petitioner has made representation through Union for engaging him back into service in view of his satisfactory services rendered for the past period. As the same has not been considered and that the dis-engagement virtually amounted to retrenchment without any prior notice which is in violation of the 4 CGR, J. W.P.No.14189 of 2004 provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he preferred present writ petition. 3. This Court, by interim order, dated 12.08.2004, has suspended the impugned proceedings. 4. None appears for the petitioner and Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned standing counsel for respondents Corporation, appears for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents Corporation submits that in view of the interim order passed, petitioner has been taken back into service and he is continuing to work as Conductor and presently, he is discharging duties at Nidadavolu Depot. 6. Since the impugned proceedings were issued dis-engaging services of petitioner without any prior notice, the same clearly amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been re-engaged and is discharging duties for considerable length of time, and that there is a glaring error in not issuing any notice before issuance of impugned proceedings of dis- engaging his services, on the said ground alone, the writ petitioner has to succeed. 5 CGR, J. W.P.No.14189 of 2004 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any in this case, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:30.10.2025. cs