IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER 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 : 1358 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 15/02/2008 in WP NO : 36545 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Deputy Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C., Medak Depot. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 G.A Reddy, S/o G.Ramarishna Reddy, R/o Ghanapur Post & (V) , Kulcharam Mandal , Medak District. 2 The Labour Court . II, Rep by Presiding Officer, Hyderabad. 3 . .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: ( Per ANIL R. DAVE, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.2.2008 passed in W.P.No. 36545 of 1998, this appeal has been ﬁled by the appellant-Corporation. The 1st respondent herein was working as a conductor. Because of the alleged irregularities committed by him, he was removed from service. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, he approached the Labour Court II, Hyderabad. By an Award dated 30.6.1998, the order of removal was set aside with a direction to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and full back wages. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid Award, the appellant ﬁled the aforesaid petition, which has been rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection of the petition, this appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Advocates and have perused the Award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the learned single Judge. Concurrent ﬁndings arrived at by the Labour Court as well as the learned single Judge have been challenged in this appeal. We have gone through the evidence referred to in the Award of the Labour Court and we ﬁnd no illegality committed by the Labour Court in arriving at the ﬁnal conclusion, which has been conﬁrmed by the learned single Judge. We do not see any reason to interfere with the just order passed by the learned single Judge even with regard to payment of back wages. The learned Judge has considered the relevant judgments and has come to the conclusion that the respondent-workman had not worked elsewhere and therefore he was entitled to back wages. We see no reason to come to a different conclusion. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. -------------------------- ANIL R. DAVE, CJ --------------------------------- R. SUBHASH REDDY, J DATE: 31/10/2008 CVM