IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3131 of 2007 Between: Boini Kankaiah S/o Komaraiah R/o Srirampur SRP-1, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., rep byits Chief General Manager (Personnel), KKothagudam, Khammam District. 2 The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., SRP Area, Sri Rampur, rep by its General manager, Sri Rampur, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioner into service in pursuance of the award of Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in ID No. 44 of 1989 dated 24-3- 94 and as per the orders in WP No. 13663 of 1994 dated 1-8-2000 as illegal, unjust contrary to law and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant consequential benefits, and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner claims to have joined the service of Singareni Collieries Company Limited on 27.04.1979 as a Badili Filler and thereafter, promoted as General Mazdoor on 14.07.1980. It is alleged that the petitioner was removed from service in the year 1982 and thereupon, he filed I.D.No.44 of 1989 before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. An award is said to have been passed by the Tribunal on 24.03.1994, directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages. In W.P.No.13663 of 1994 filed by the Company, against the award, an order is said to have been passed on 03.08.2000 with a compromise, providing for reinstatement of the petitioner. His grievance is that he has not been reinstated so far and in his place, a person, by name S.Sattaiah, S/o.Pochalu, the third respondent herein, was reinstated. He seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate him as per the directions in the award in I.D.No.44 of 1989 and the orders of this Court in W.P.No.13663 of 1994. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations. It is stated that the petitioner was not appointed at any point of time and he has come forward with false plea. On behalf of the third respondent, it is stated that he was the person, appointed in the year 1979 and reinstated in the year 1997 on the basis of the award of the Tribunal. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri S.A.Razak, the learned counsel for the third respondent. In addition to hearing the arguments of the learned counsel and on perusing the record, this Court has also examined the petitioner and the third respondent, who were summoned. Though the petitioner asserted that he has been appointed in the year 1979 and dismissed from service in the year 1982 and got relief in the Industrial Tribunal, he is not able to place any material before this Court in support of his claim. For all practical purposes, he is feigning of ignorance as to the developments that have taken place in the Industrial Tribunal or this Court. At any rate, he did not approach respondents 1 and 2 soon after the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.13663 of 1994. Be that as it may, the plea raised by the petitioner is one of identity. He pleads that the third respondent impersonated him. Therefore, the identity has to be proved with reference to the relevant record. This would be possible only in a suit filed in a civil Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to prove his identity as well as the fact that he was the person employed as Badili Filler in the year 1979 in the name of Boini Kanakaiah, duly impleading the parties concerned. Depending on the outcome of the suit, he can pursue his remedies vis-à-vis respondents 1 and 2. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}