THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.726 OF 2011 ORDER: (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by an order made in W.P.No.13892 of 2003, dated 29.17.2011, whereby, the learned single Judge, modified the Award passed by the Labour Court ordering for reinstatement afresh, with continuity of service and attendant benefits, without any back wages, the Appellant/Corporation preferred the present appeal. 2. It is the case of the learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation that the 1st respondent/workman was appointed as conductor on 13.03.1983. On the ground that he has indulged in ticket irregularities, he was removed from service on 14.07.1993. The 1st respondent/workman filed an application I.D.No.138 of 1998 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The Labour Court while considering the fact that the workman was at the fag end of his service and the amount involved was only Rs.20/-, and also kept in mind the sustenance of his family as he has been out of service from 14.07.1993, and therefore the Tribunal directed the Corporation to appoint the workman in service as a fresh conductor. Challenging the said order, the workman moved W.P.No.13892 of 2003 for the sake of continuity of service and attendant benefits. 3. The learned single Judge while considering the matter, observed that the Labour Court has not specified any reason in respect of denying back wages and other attendant benefits. It was also observed that the Labour Court has not shown sufficient reasons for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction of fresh appointment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the learned single Judge modified the order of the Labour Court and directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits, without any back wages. It was also made clear that the continuity of service with attendant benefits, shall be calculated for the purpose of terminal benefits. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal is preferred. 4. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly confirmed the Award of the Labour Court. we are not persuaded to take a view different from that of the learned single Judge to interfere with the Order passed by him. The Writ Appeal is merit-less and is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________________​______ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 5th December,2011 sp THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.726 OF 2011 5th December, 2011 sp