IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 295 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/06/2007 in WP NO : 24370 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M.Kistaiah, S/o.M.Gangaiah, R/o.Gadipeddapur village & post, Andhole Tq., Alladurga Mandal, Medak District-502 269. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Medak District. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Narayankhed, Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : JUDGMENT Per Anil R. Dave, CJ Rule Nisi. At the request of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the appeal is finally heard today. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: The appellant was working as a Conductor under the Respondents. He was proceeded in a departmental enquiry on the charge of misappropriation and on establishing the same in the enquiry he was removed from service. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, the appellant had initiated proceedings before the Labour Court and, ultimately, by an award dated 2.7.1996 the appellant was ordered to be reinstated into service without back wages. The validity of the aforesaid award was challenged by the present respondents-employer by filing Writ Petition No.24370 of 1998. The said Writ petition has been allowed by a learned Single Judge by order-dated 27.6.2007. By virtue of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the award passed by the Labour Court has been set aside. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed by the appellant-employee. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and have also perused the record pertaining to the case. It has been submitted by learned Advocate Sri Narasimha Goud appearing for the appellant that in pursuance of the award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant had already been reinstated into service in November, 1996. It has been further submitted by him that notice with regard to admission of the Writ Petition No.24370 of 1998 had never been served upon the appellant and, therefore, the appellant could not get any opportunity to represent his case before the learned Single Judge. He has, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is against the principles of natural justice for the reason that without hearing the appellant the award which had been passed in favour of the appellant has been set aside. Learned Counsel also submitted that pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has been terminated from service by order-dated 21.8.2007 of the Depot Manager, Narayanakhed. It has been found from the record that notice issued by this Court in W.P.No.24370 of 1998 to be served upon the present appellant i.e. original respondent in W.P.No.24370 of 1998 could not be served upon him as he was not found at the place stated in the address. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned advocates upon perusal of the record. In view of this, the appeal is liable to be allowed as the learned single Judge has passed the impugned order without affording any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. As a consequence thereof, the order dated 21.8.2007 passed by the Depot Manager, Narayanakhed, whereby the appellant has been removed from service also shall stand quashed. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court the appellant had been reinstated into service and, therefore, the appellant has to be continued in service. Now that the order dated 21.8.2007 is quashed, it is needless to observe that the appellant will be continued in service. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for hearing the writ petition afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant-employee. The Registry shall place the mater before the learned Single Judge taking up such matters. Sri V. Narasimha Goud learned counsel appearing for the appellant has waived service of notice in the petition and, therefore, it would not be necessary for the Registry to serve notice in the writ petition on the present appellant again. The Writ Petition shall be posted for final hearing on 21.4.2008. The name of the advocate appearing for the appellant shall be shown as advocate appearing for the respondent in the writ petition. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 24th March, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J vtv Note: A copy of this order be furnished to Sri Satya Prasad, learned Government Pleader. (BO)