THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.613 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioners-APSRTC filed this writ petition of certiorari seeking to quash the order, dated 17.01.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal), in I.D.No.26 of 2000, directing them to reinstate the first respondent-workman into service with backwages and continuity of service, but stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect after his joining service. 2. The first respondent while working as Driver alleged to have been absented to duty unauthorizedly from 06.10.1998 to 09.10.1998. A charge memo was issued to him on 05.12.1998. After enquiry, he was removed from service by order, dated 20.10.1999, against which, he preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed on 22.12.1999 and the review filed by him was also dismissed on 04.01.2000. Aggrieved by the same, he filed I.D.No.26 of 2000 under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatement into service with backwages and continuity of service. The Tribunal, after considering the contention of the first respondent that he was bedridden due to sickness for the absented period of three days and perusing the medical certificate filed by him, held that removal of the first respondent was unjustified as the charge memo issued to him does not indicate framing of any grave charge and therefore, the punishment of removal is harsh and shockingly disproportionate. Accordingly, the Tribunal, by its award, dated 17.01.2001, modified the punishment of removal of the first respondent from service into reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service, but stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners- APSRTC and perused the material on record. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the removal order passed by the petitioners was not set aside by the Tribunal, the award impugned cannot be implemented by them. 5. The fact remains that this Court, on 11.09.2002, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the award impugned, except reinstatement of the first respondent. However, no notice is served on the first respondent in spite of repeated opportunities given to the petitioners and therefore, this Court, on 23.09.2010, while permitting the petitioners to take out fresh notice to the first respondent, passed a conditional order that if they failed to file proof of service, the writ petition stands dismissed. 6. When once the Tribunal directed the petitioners to reinstate the first respondent into service with backwages and continuity of service, but stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect, the removal order stands modified. Therefore, I find no force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners. Since no notice was served on the first respondent till today, I see no reason to interfere with the award impugned. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J Date:20.01.2011 sj