IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1466 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/10/2008 in WP NO : 2112 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Andhra Bank, rep. by its Deputy General Manager (HRD) Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy General Manager Zonal Office, Andhra Bank, Warangal. 3 Branch Manager Andhra Bank, Paloncha, Khammam District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Kolluri Srinivas S/o.Late K.Cheeralu R/o.13-1-104, Ramnagar, New Polancha, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA (SC FOR ANDHRA BANK) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) By virtue of this appeal, the order passed in W.P.No. 2112 of 2006, dated 27-10-2008, has been challenged. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and upon perusal of the impugned order, we ﬁnd that the learned single Judge has directed the present appellants to verify the fact whether the original petitioner had worked for 90 days or more from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1989 in Paloncha Branch of the Andhra Bank. If, ultimately it is found that the certiﬁcate issued by the concerned Branch Manager is correct, the respondent- original petitioner will get beneﬁt of the policy of appellant No.1-Bank. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that looking to the criteria ﬁxed by the appellants-Bank, the respondent might not be eligible to get the benefit prayed for in the petition. In our opinion, it would be open to the appellants to examine the case of the respondent-original petitioner, in the light of the policy incorporated in the settlement, dated 9-1-1995 arrived at under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a copy of which is forming part of this appeal at page No.13. Thus, if it is ultimately found that the respondent- employee is eligible to be placed in the panel as per the aforestated policy incorporated in the settlement and if the certiﬁcate issued by the concerned Branch Manager is found to be correct, the respondent-employee would become eligible to get his name incorporated in the panel of sub- staff at appropriate place as per the normal policy. Subject to the aforestated clariﬁcation, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th November, 2008. GRR