THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION Nos: 26590 of 2007 & 5163 of 2008 DATED: 18-02-2010 W.P.No.26590 of 2007: Between: A.Ganesh Rao. ..... PETITIONER And The Hon’ble Labour Court-1, Rep.by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.5163 of 2008: Between: The Regional Manager, Hyderabad City Region, Jubilee Bus Station Complex, Secunderabad & another. ..... PETITIONERS And A.Ganesh Rao & another. .....RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER: Since the issue raised in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, both these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. One A.Ganesh Rao, who was working as driver with the APSRTC, caused an accident on 16-03-2003 resulting in the death of two persons. On account of the said accident, the Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings and accordingly a charge sheet has been served on him on 28-04-2003. After completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the said Ganesh Rao was removed from service on 04-08- 2003. Thereafter, he approached the appellate authority and reviewing authority but was not successful. As against the said order of removal, the said Ganesh Rao approached the Industrial Tribunal and raised a dispute in I.D.No.125 of 2004 and the Tribunal by its order, dated 14-009-2006, ordered his re-instatement, however without continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages, and pursuant thereto, the said Ganesh Rao was re-instated into service on 05-03-2007, however, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, whereby he was not allowed to be paid the said back wages, the said Ganesh Rao filed W.P.No.26590 of 2007 and the Corporation also approached this Court and filed W.P.No.5163 of 2008, questioning the said order of re-instatement. 3. Having considered the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for APSRTC as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the said award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 14-09-2006, this Court is of the view that the said award is perfectly justified and no interference is called for. 4. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ T.GOPALAKRISHNA,J 18th February, 2010. Tsy