IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT APPEL No.1320 of 2009 (Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against order dated 03.07.2009 in W.P. No.21058 of 1999 on the file of the High Court). Between: K. Bapanna Dora, S/o. Late Sri Kondalaraidu, Aged 57 yrs, D.No.23-20-28, Lalithanagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. … Appellant And 1. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., Rajahmundry, rep., by its Legal Officer N. Srinivasa Rao. 2. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhpatnam. …Respondents. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P. Raghavender Reddy. Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri V. Srinivas Counsel for respondent No.2: G.P. for Labour This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1320 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 03.07.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.21058 of 1999, this appeal has been filed by original respondent No.2 – workman. Respondent No.2 – workman was removed from service. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, he approached the Labour Court. After hearing the concerned parties, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, but without back wages. We have perused the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the award for the reason that the Labour Court had tried to re-appreciate the evidence. Upon appreciation of the evidence, final decision with regard to dismissal had been taken by the employer, but the Labour Court found that it was possible to have the second view. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the second view, which was in favour of the workman, has been accepted by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge found that it was not permissible in view of the judgments, which have been referred to by him in his order. Upon hearing the learned advocate appearing for the appellant – workman and upon perusal of the award as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in coming to the conclusion that the Labour Court was not right in re-appreciating the evidence. Another view, which the Labour Court thought proper, could not have been accepted by it, according to the learned Single Judge, and we are in agreement with the said view expressed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any substance in the appeal and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP.No.2779 of 2009 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.11.2009 ES