HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8151 of 2010 Dated: 13-04-2010 Between: P. Chanda Basha. … Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8151 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the Award, dated 16th September 2008, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No.131 of 2005. The petitioner is working as a Helper in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He was removed from service on proved misconduct and the same was also confirmed by the departmental appellate authority. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur. During the pendency of the proceedings, when the matter was referred to Lok-Adalat, a compromise memo was filed and the I.D. was disposed of in terms of the said compromise memo. Thereafter, as per the terms of the compromise memo, the petitioner was appointed as a fresh Helper, without any back-wages and attendant benefits. The present writ petition is filed, stating that the petitioner has not entered into any settlement to forego his past service, and as such, he is entitled to his past service. During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents has produced a copy of the compromise memo filed before the Lok-Adalat at Anantapur, in I.D.No.131 of 2005, which is signed by the petitioner and also his Advocate. As per the terms and conditions of compromise, the petitioner has agreed for fresh appointment and it is further stated that the petitioner/claimant will not claim any back-wages and attendant benefits in future. He also undertook that he will not absent unauthorisedly in future. Having filed such a compromise memo before the Lok-Adalat, which is constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, the petitioner cannot question the same again. When the petitioner has accepted fresh appointment, it implies that he has no right to claim past service. Having accepted the fresh appointment without claiming any attendant benefits and back-wages, the petitioner cannot question the impugned Award, which is passed, basing on the compromise memo. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th April 2010 ajr