HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 13766 of 2009 DATED: 03.02.2010 Between: APSRTC rep. By Depot Manager .. Petitioner And The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-1, and another . .. Respondents O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the Award dated 06.10.1998 passed I .D. No.85 of 1997 by the 1st respondent-Labour Court–1, Hyderabad. It appears that the 2nd respondent was appointed as Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C) on 09.10.1988. While so, on 04.08.1994, he was served with a charge sheet alleging that he had produced bogus SSC Certificate at the time of selection, and got appointed as Conductor in the petitioner- Corporation, which constitutes misconduct. Therefore, the petitioner- Corporation conducted an enquiry, and based on the enquiry report, issued a Show Cause Notice to the 2nd respondent-workman, and subsequently, removed him from service, vide its Proceedings dated 20.03.1995. Then, the 2nd respondent-workman raised a dispute before the 1st respondent- Labour Court under Section 24(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1847 (for short “the Act”). The Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court found that the 2nd respondent-workman produced a bogus certificate showing that he passed SSC in First Class, and obtained employment in the petitioner-Corporation even though he passed SSC compartmentally. Thus, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority as wells as the Labour Court cannot be got over. The only ground on which the Award was passed directing fresh appointment of the 2nd respondent-workman, is that by the time he was removed from his job, he had already completed more than six years of service. Now, during the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent has already been appointed afresh and is being continued in service as on today in view of the Award passed by the Labour Court. Further, the petitioner is likely to attain the age of superannuation within two years. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the 1st respondent-Labour Court, while exercising its powers under Section 11(a) of the Act, in its wisdom, has already given appointment to the 2nd respondent-workman afresh in view of the Award dated 06.10.1998 passed in I.D. No.85 of 1997 by the 1st respondent-Labour Court, as such, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the Award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 3rd February, 2010 bcj