IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 17840 of 1999 Between: A.Pullaiah, S/o Narsaiah, E.No. 39294, R/o Khammam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Warangal. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Khammam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to call for the records from the 1st respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, and quash the Award passedby the 1st respondent in I.D.No.38 of 1994, dt. 16.9.1997, published on 31.10.1997 in so far as denying the contunuity of service and back wages to the petitioner as illegal, unjust and contrary to law; and grant all consequential benefits; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner who was working as Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short –‘the Corporation’) ﬁled this writ petition aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.38 of 1994 dated 16-09-1997 whereby he was directed to be given appointment as a fresh candidate but was denied the continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the Corporation with eﬀect from 22-04-1970 on his producing a conductor’s licence bearing No.261/69, but when the said licence was sent for renewal, it was noticed by the licencing authority that the very licence was bogus and was not a genuine one. Therefore, on the ground that the petitioner obtained employment in the Corporation by producing a bogus conductor’s licence bearing No.261/69 and cheated the Corporation, the order of terminating him from the service was passed. Though the order terminating him from service was passed on 01-12-1975, the petitioner raised the industrial dispute nearly 19 years thereafter i.e. in 1994 through I.D.No.38 of 1994 and though there was abnormal delay on the part of the petitioner, the Tribunal, mainly on the ground that the order of termination was not preceded by a domestic enquiry and the petitioner was not given any opportunity, has entertained that petition and ordered for appointment of the petitioner as a fresh candidate but denied the continuity of service, back wages and other attendant beneﬁts. The nature of appointment of the petitioner is not clear from the pleadings on record, but however, in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, it was stated that the petitioner was appointed only as a Retainer Conductor. It appears from the averments made in the counter that he was not a Conductor appointed in the regular selections. In any event, this writ petition is ﬁled claiming continuity of service and back wages and this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to claim such beneﬁt on the sole ground of abnormal delay inasmuch as the order terminating him from service was passed on 01-12-1975 and he raised the industrial dispute nearly 19 years thereafter i.e. in 1994 through I.D.No.38 of 1994. In that view of the matter, though no counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled opposing the petition, I ﬁnd no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition fails. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd November 2008 CVRK