IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1330 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/12/2003 in WP NO : 6505 OF 1994 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Khaza Valiuddin, S/o. Khaza Zainuluddin, E.No. 99033, R/o. Nirmal, Adilabad District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Adilabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : JUDGMENT Per Anil R. Dave, CJ Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 17.12.2003 delivered in W.P.No.6505 of 1994, this appeal has been filed by a driver of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The bus, which was being driven by the appellant, had met with an accident on the intervening night of 21/22-05-1988 as he was in a sleepy mood. After holding an enquiry, his services were terminated. Being aggrieved by the termination of services, the appellant had initially proceeded under the Industrial disputes Act by raising a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The tribunal found that the enquiry was conducted in a proper manner. However, looking to the facts of the case, the tribunal directed that instead of removing the appellant from service, he be reverted from the post of driver to the post of helper as a fresh candidate without back wages. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant has filed the aforesaid writ petition. By the order impugned, the appellant has not been awarded back wages but he has been given some benefit to the effect that he shall be treated as driver with effect from 1.1.2004. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant be given other benefits also such as seniority and back wages. We see no merit in the submission made by the learned Advocate for the reason that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper, as the appellant was given the benefit of being reappointed as driver instead of helper as awarded by the Tribunal. We, therefore, find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal thus fails and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 5th March, 2008 T.CH. SURYA RAO, J vtv