HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Dated: 08-12-2009 WRIT APPEAL No. 1420 OF 2009 Between: M. Premsagar ... APPELLANT AND The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Utoor Depot, Adilabad District and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1420 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 16-09-2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 2173 of 2006, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. 2. The appellant who was working as a Conductor got married again during subsistence of his first marriage and thereby, he had contravened Regulation 25 of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. In the circumstances, after holding a regular enquiry, the appellant had been removed from service. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the appellant had filed I.D No. 50 of 2001 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The order of removal had been confirmed in the award dated 06-02-2002 and being aggrieved by the same, the appellant had filed the aforestated writ petition. 4 . After hearing the concerned advocates, the learned single Judge has rejected the petition and, therefore, the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and the award and we have also heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant. 6. Upon perusal of the record and upon hearing the learned advocates, we have found that at the time of preliminary enquiry, the petitioner had admitted the fact with regard to his second marriage. In the circumstances, after holding the regular enquiry, the order of removal had been passed which had been confirmed in the award and later on, the learned single Judge also confirmed the said award. 7. In view of admission of the appellant and more particularly, in view of the fact that the appellant did not adduce any evidence before the Labour Court and even did not cross examine the complainant or any other officer, the Labour Court was justified in confirming the order of removal. 8. We do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08-12-2009 ks