IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) / THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \ \\ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20382 OF 2005 Between: 1. West Godawari Cooperative Sugars Ltd., Seasonal Workers Union, Rep by its Genl.Secretary, N.Ch.N.V.Rananuja Charyulu, S/o.Seethampeta, W.G.district. 2. Kali Prabhudas, S/o.Yesudas, R/o.Seethampeta W.G.district. 3. Ch.V.Satyanarayana, S/o.Ramaswamy, aged 42 years, Ex- Worker, R/o.Seethampeta, via, Gundugolanu, Denduluru Mandal, W.G.district. via Gunugolanu Denduluru Mandal, age 43 years, Ex-Worker, Gunjdugolanu, Denduluru Mandal, via ...PETITIONERS AND 1. State of Andha Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Public Enterprises Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Director of Sugars and Cane Commissioner, A.P. NSF Buildings, 0pp. Police Control Room, Hyderabad, A.P. % 3. The Managing Director, West Godawari Cooperative Sugars Ltd., at Kisan Seva Sadan, Eluru, West Godawari district A.P. 4. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of. Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, W.G. District R4 is impleaded as per court order dt. 9-11-2006 in W.P.M.P.No.24252/06. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the production linked incentives statutory minimum Bonus for the accounting years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 and difference of Gratuity, and special compensation benefits, to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and against Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and or consequently direct the respondents to pay production linked incentives or statutory minimum Bonus under the Act, and difference of gratuity immediately benefits under special compensation package vide G.0.25/01 would be as decided by the Industrial Tribunal : and the that to all the petitioner- union members. i.A. NO: 2 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 24252 OF 9()nR] 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 implead the proposed respondent as respondent No.4 i.e.. The Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and The Assistant Commissioner of Eluru, West Godavari District for proper adjudication. Labour, I.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP. NO: 25968 OF 2005) 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 respondents more particularly the 1st and 3rd respondents not to disburse the funds to the tune of Rs.1.56 crs. (Rupees one crore and fifty six lakhs only ), which are lying with them, for any other purpose, other than the payment of legitimate claims of the petitioners herein, which deserves paramount importance. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRi. MOHAMMAD YOUSUFUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M V DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following Order: APHC010152372005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] urn THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20382/2005 Between; West Godawari Cooperative Sugars Ltd., W.g.district & 2, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of A P Rep By Its PrI Secretary Hyd 3 Others and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MOHAMMAD YOUSUFUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.MVDURGA PRASAD 2.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL 3.GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following; ORDER; On 07.04.2025 and 24.04.2025, there is no representation for the petitioners and the matter is posted under the caption for dismissal. 2. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, today, there is no representation for the petitioners. This shows that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the case. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- V.DIWAKAR deputy REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER . To, > 'l. One CCIp Sri. Mohammad Yousufuddin, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to the Advocate General ,High Court of Andhra Pradesh. ( v<^ 3. One CC to Sri. M V Durga Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Industries & Commerce ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.20382 of 2005 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON PROSECUTION