1 APHC010378452016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 21024/2016 Between: 1. SRI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA JUTE MILLS LIMITED,, (ARENA UNIT), V.T AGRAHARAM, VIZIANAGARAM REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE, BOBBILI ROAD, RAJAM - 532 127, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI KOTHA VENKAT RAO, S/O. SATYRANARAYANA, AGED 55 YEARS. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND FACTORIES DEPT., REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, ANDHRA PRADESH, T. ANJAIAH BHAVAN, RTC X ROADS, HYDERABAD. 3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, 0/O THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, ANDHRA PRADESH, T. ANJAIAH BHAVAN, RTC X ROADS, HYDERABAD. 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, AKKAYYAPALAM MAIN ROAD, VISHAKAPATNAM. 5. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the Proceedings No. H1/4251/2015 of the Commissioner of Labour. Hyderabad Dt:- 05-12- 2015 referring the dispute for adjudication is illegal and in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) Declare the order in GO. Rt. No. 353, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Labour- II) Department Dt:- 12-05-2016 prohibiting the continuation of lockout as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set-aside the same and (iii) pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR (AP) 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.21024 of 2016 This Court made the following ORDER: Though the matter is posted today under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation for the petitioner. The docket order shows that there was no representation for the petitioner on 09.07.2024, 23.07.2024 and 02.02.2026. 2. Hence, it appears that learned counsel for the petitioner has no interest to prosecute the writ petition. 3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 12.02.2026 krk 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.21024 of 2016 DT: 12.02.2026 krk 82