THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.518 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a driver in Anakapalli Depot of APSRTC. He was found to be medically unfit and, therefore, he was compulsorily retired with effect from 14-01-1989. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, being I.D.No.37 of 1989 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, and an award was passed directing the Corporation to provide alternative employment to the petitioner and to pay 50% back wages from the date of retirement, till the date of fresh appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Shramik on 04-03-1992. The petitioner filed W.P.No.11853 of 2003 complaining that though a sum of Rs.22,873/- was paid towards 50% back wages, he is entitled for a further sum of Rs.11,000/-. The writ petition was disposed of on 25-06-2003 directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner. The Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, in turn passed an order, dated 23-08-2003, informing the petitioner that no further amount is due. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has already approached the Labour Court aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement. The relief in the form of a direction to provide alternative employment and 50% back wages was granted. Both the reliefs were extended to the petitioner. A sum of Rs.11,000/- payable to the petitioner is said to be towards increments and bonus. That, however, ought to have been urged before the Labour Court itself when he claimed other reliefs. In W.P.No.11853 of 2003, the issue raised was that Rs.11,000/- represents part of 50% back wages as well as the other amounts. Once the Labour Court had decided the dispute, this court cannot entertain that arena and if any amount that was ordered by the Labour Court is not paid, the petitioner has to approach the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondents have already given a reply stating that no amount is due. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 23-09-2010 Prv