THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 24644 of 2000 ORDER: The respondent was appointed as Secretary by the petitioner- society. It is stated that he misappropriated a sum of Rs.70,420/-, and when proceedings were initiated, he has not only admitted the factum of misappropriation, but also has promised to pay the amount by 15- 09-1992. Through order dated 29-09-1992, the District Collector transferred the respondent to PACS, Jutur. The respondent filed M.P.No.53 of 1996 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming a sum of Rs.1,77,926/- towards arrears of salary. The Tribunal passed an order dated 14-07-1997, allowing the petition. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the respondent ceased to be an employee of the society with effect from 29-09-1992, and there was no basis for him to claim salary for any period thereafter. It is urged that the Labour Court did not issue any notice before the impugned order was passed. The petitioner has placed before this Court, a copy of the order dated 17-11-1998, passed by this Court in W.P.No.9116 of 1997 filed by the respondent herein. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. It is not in dispute that the respondent was transferred from the petitioner-society through order dated 29-09-2992. He filed W.P.No.9116 of 1997, to declare the action of the petitioner herein in refusing to take him on duty and not paying the salary, as illegal. The Writ Petition was dismissed, holding that there was no justification for the respondent in not joining the PACS, Jutur. Even before the respondent filed W.P.No.9116 of 1997, he filed M.P.No.53 of 1996, and an order was passed therein. However, no reference was made to that in the writ petition. A perusal of the order in M.P.No.53 of 1996 discloses that, it was not even mentioned that the notice was served upon the petitioner. Apart from that serious infirmity, the fact that the respondent ceased to be an employee of the petitioner, with effect from 29-09-1992; is not denied. Therefore, the question of the petitioner being required to pay the salary, beyond that date, does not arise. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.26-11-2010. KO