IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.209 OF 2002 Date:19.08.2009. Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nirmal and another .... Petitioners And: Mohd. Abdul Hadi and another ....Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.209 OF 2002 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The officers of the A.P.S.R.T.C, the petitioners in WP No.25430 of 2001, filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2001, dismissing the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, the A.P.S.R.T.C had challenged the award of the Labour Court, Godavarikhani, in ID No.172 of 1993 dated 4.10.1996 The Labour Court had passed the award in the year 1996 and the Writ Petition challenging the same was filed with a delay of nearly five years. The learned Judge took note of this delay and also the fact that the respondent workman had been reinstated in service pursuant to the award and accordingly, dismissed the Writ Petition. Smt Rajani Reddy, learned standing counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C, contended before us that the Corporation was aggrieved by the award under challenge to the extent that it granted full back wages to the respondent workman. She placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Brassware Corporation Limited and another Vs. Uday Narain Pandey (2006 (1) SCC page 479) in support of her contention that entitlement to back wages was not automatic upon reinstatement in service pursuant to a court order. There is no dispute with the proposition afore stated. However, the delay on the part of the Corporation in challenging the award does not behove an examination of the matter on merits. Having kept quiet for nearly five years and having abided by the award of the Labour Court, it is not open to the appellant Corporation to seek to unsettle settled matters at this late stage. Having reinstated the workman in 1996 itself, it is not proper for the appellant-corporation to assail the correctness of the award at this late hour. We therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J Date:19.08.2009. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.209 OF 2002 ORDER: DATE:19.08.2009. Gk.