THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.145 OF 2001 04th September, 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 3.04.2000 in W.P.No.15547 of 1989 on the ﬁle of the High Court.) Between: The Management of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Rep. By its General Manager, Projects, P.O. Bellampalli, Adalabad District. ...APPELLANT AND The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Hyderabad & Another. ...RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.145 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This writ appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is ﬁled by Singareni Collieries Company Limited, represented by its General Manager, challenging the orders passed by learned single judge of this Court in W.P.No.15547 of 1989, dated 3.4.2000 whereby the Writ Petition ﬁled by the appellant- Management questioning the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.8 of 1985, dated 13.3.1987, was dismissed conﬁrming the ﬁndings of the Tribunal holding that the dismissal of the workman is void, unjustiﬁed and illegal and at best he is not entitled for wages on 1.9.1983 and he is entitled to be continued as Badli worker throughout with all back wages from the time of dismissal apart from being reinstated with all other attendant benefits. The services of the second respondent-workman were terminated on the ground that he instigated the other workers and struck work illegally on 1.9.1983 causing loss of production to the tune of 210.00 tonnes valued at Rs.30 lakhs, for which, a charge sheet was issued calling upon his explanation and after conducting regular enquiry, he was removed from service with eﬀect from 16.11.1983. On raising an industrial dispute by the workman, the tribunal, after taking into consideration the enquiry, found that awarding the punishment of dismissal of workman is unjustiﬁed and accordingly ordered for reinstatement of the workman with all attendant beneﬁts as referred to above. In the writ petition, the learned single judge of this Court, after considering the reasoning adopted by the tribunal while ordering reinstatement, not accepted the plea of the appellant- Management and dismissed the writ petition by order dated 3.4.2000 conﬁrming the ﬁndings of the tribunal in holding that the workman was not responsible for instigating for strike by other workers. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and none represented for the second respondent-workman. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that pending the writ petition, the workman has been reinstated and he has been continuing all along from 1989 onwards. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the award passed by the tribunal having held that the workman is not entitled for wages on 1.9.1983, ordering for reinstatement with all back wages is inconsistent with the earlier findings. We have carefully gone through the award passed by the tribunal. What all the tribunal held is that the workman is not entitled to wages on 1.9.1983 on which date he went on strike along with other workers, but not for the back wages from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement. In view of the same, no inﬁrmity is discernable with the discretion exercised by the tribunal and the learned single judge of this Court rightly dismissed the Writ Petition No.15547 of 1989. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ______________________ 04th SEPTEMBER, 2008 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Tsr.