THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1006 of 2005 Between: G. Shankaraiah PETITIONER(S) AND The Labour Court-III, M.J. Road, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1006 2005 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.15978 of 2002 dated 16-3-2005 insofar as not grating continuity of service and back wages is concerned. The appellant-writ petitioner was a conductor and that while conducting a bus on 11-9-1999 a surprise check was exercised by the officials of the respondent-Corporation and having found certain irregularities a departmental enquiry was ordered and ultimately the appellant was removed from service. The petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that both parties were allowed to produce evidence. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on record, passed an award holding that the petitioner was responsible for the charges 1 to 5 framed against him, though he had been acquitted of charge no.6 and rejected his claim for reinstatement or other benefits. Challenging the said Award, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.15978 of 2002 before this Court and the learned single Judge of this Court, on adjudication of the matter, partly allowed the writ petition modifying the impugned award to the effect that the second respondent-Corporation shall consider the petitioner’s case for fresh appointment and that the entire period shall be treated as if the petitioner on duty for the purpose of pension after attaining the age of superanuation. The learned single while adverting to the issue rightly held that in the absence of any conclusive and cogent material being produced on behalf of the second respondent to support the very allegations as made in the charges, de hors the other documentary evidence produced, it is a fit case where the petitioner’s case can be reconsidered for appointment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned single Judge considering the facts situation rightly denied the back wages and continuity of service. The Writ Appeal is therefore meritless and is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. KK/12-10-2011 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1006 of 2005 12-10-2011