THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL No. 932 OF 2011 DATED:16-11-2011 Between: The APSRTC, rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another … Appellants And Mr. A.G. Reddy and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL No. 932 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment and order, dated 19-09-2011 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 11797 of 2003. 2. The respondent – workman was removed from service by an order, dated 06-07-1999. The allegation made against him was that he had decanted some high speed diesel oil from the truck. A complaint in this regard was lodged against him by the Depot Manager and a domestic enquiry was held. 3. In the domestic enquiry, the Depot Manager was not examined although the preliminary report given by him was produced. The appellant produced two witnesses i.e., L.P Reddy and K. Yadaiah who were cleaners in the truck. As far as L.P Reddy is concerned, he stated that the Depot Manager had obtained his statement forcibly as per his dictation and he did not know about the alleged theft. He further stated that the statement recorded in the preliminary enquiry was not correct. 4. Insofar as K. Yadaiah is concerned, he denied knowledge of the incident. 5. Notwithstanding the above, the respondent – workman was found guilty and removed from service. 6. An industrial dispute being I.D No. 97 of 2000 was raised by the respondent - workman. The Labour Court passed an award on 13-12- 2002 setting aside the removal of the respondent – workman and directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition which came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge and that is how the matter is now before us. 8. The learned single Judge went through the award of the Labour Court and noted that no evidence was produced by the appellant worth its name to prove the charge against the respondent – workman. The Depot Manager who was the complainant was not produced in the witness box and the two cleaners who were produced denied knowledge of the incident. Under the circumstances, the inevitable conclusion was that the award in favour of the respondent – workman. 9. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal is dismissed and the interim application is also dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 16-11-2011 ks