KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS Appeal is preferred against the order dated 29. 9. 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 20996/97 dismissing the Writ Petition for non-prosecution. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this Appeal are as hereunder:-The appellant-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 19. 9. 1996 in reference No. KID 55/1995 where the reference was accepted and the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent with 50% backwages and continuity of service and consequential benefits. It appears the respondent has been reinstated in terms of the above order and is working with the Corporation. The notice of the Writ petition could not be served on the respondent despite several attempts. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the appellant stated that several letters were sent to the Corporation to furnish the correct address and there was no response from them furnishing the correct address and therefore he expressed his inability to take notice to the respondent. In the aforesaid circumstances on 23,9. 1999 the writ Petition as against the first respondent came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently, by the impugned order dated 29. 9. 1999 the Writ Petition came to be dismissed as a whole as the second respondent in the Writ Petition was the Labour Court, a formal party. ( 3 ) WHILE dismissing the Writ Petition for non-prosecution thelearned Single Judge placed on record the non-co-operation given by the appellant to its counsel in furnishing the correct address. Thereafter, he was constrained to hold as under:-"it only shows that somebody has colluded with the 1st respondent preventing the Counsel from taking steps to serve notice on the first respondent and this Court prevented from examining the correctness of the award. This is a serious matter which should be brought to notice of the Managing Director of the Corporation". A copy of the impugned order was directed to be forwarded to the Managing Director, KSRTG, for appropriated action. It is against this order the appellants 'has preferred this appeal. This is a serious matter which should be brought to notice of the Managing Director of the Corporation". A copy of the impugned order was directed to be forwarded to the Managing Director, KSRTG, for appropriated action. It is against this order the appellants 'has preferred this appeal. ( 4 ) APART from challenging the award of the Labour Court and theorder of the learned Single Judge on the ground that a stale claim has been entertained thus depriving them of an opportunity to adduce evidence justifying their action the appellant attacked the finding of the learned Single Judge as under-"the learned Single Judge is also not justified in seeing collusion between the delinquent and the officers of the corporation. Such indictment of the officers without a proper factual basis is likely to bring down the morals of the Officers and the Courts are expected to be well fortified while making such observations. " ( 5 ) IN the entire appeal memo it is not disputed that the respondenthas been reinstated in service and that he is working with the corporation. The non-Cooperation pleaded by the learned Counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge is not disputed. Even in the appeal memo the correct address of the first respondent is not given. If the respondent is working with the Corporation, we do not find any justification for the Corporation not furnishing the correct address of the respondent to their counsel. But in ground no. 8 of the appeal memo attacking the finding of the learned Single judge it is again reiterated that the workman had himself furnished a vague address and that there was no way of finding his whereabouts especially in the wake of passage of 14 years and therefore the order touching this aspect partakes of surmises and therefore ill-founded. While making such unjustified attack the appellant has forgotten that they have reinstated the respondent and the respondent is working in their establishment and the respondent giving a vague address is of no consequence as he is on the rolls of the appellant. He is attending the office everyday and he has been paid the salary and inspite of that if the appellant could not furnish the correct address of the respondent it only demonstrates negligence on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the matter. He is attending the office everyday and he has been paid the salary and inspite of that if the appellant could not furnish the correct address of the respondent it only demonstrates negligence on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the matter. ( 6 ) WHEN the learned Judge wanted the Managing Director of theappellant to look into the matter and take appropriate action, instead of taking any appropriate action against the officials who are not diligent in prosecuting the legal proceedings of the ap'pellant, who are not cooperating with their advocates and who are not'assisting the Court in administration of justice, the appellant has Chosen to file this appeal attacking the Courts for pointing out the negligence on the part of the appellant in prosecuting the matter and advising the Courts regarding their obligations. The Corporation which is in financial doldrums which is feeling the pinch of the award passed by the Labour Court instead. of addressing themselves to the real problems affecting the Corporation have chosen to find fault with court for exposing their negligence in prosecuting the legal matters before the Court. The highest authority in the appellant organisation without taking any steps to set his own house in order is virtually attempting to defend the negligence on the part of the officials in prosecuting the matters before Court by putting the blame on the courts. This conduct of the appellant is highly deplorable. By such action he is not setting a good example for his subordinates. The concern shown by the learned Counsel for the appellant before us is not forthcoming from the conduct of the appellant in prosecuting thet matters before the Court. Therefore, we are constrained to observe that the observations passe'd by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition is fully justified in the circumstances and do not call for any interference in this Appeal. Accordingly, this appeal lacks merits. Dismissed. --- *** --- .