HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9477 of 2010 Dated: 26-04-2010 Between: D. Nagaraju. … Petitioner And The APSRTC, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9477 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is non-fixing of his pay in terms of the relief granted by Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, in its Award, dated 25th of January 1995, passed in I.D.No.560 of 1992. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in APSRTC, in the year 1986 and his services were regularized in 1987. In 2002, pursuant to initiation of disciplinary proceedings, he was removed from service. Same is questioned by way of application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.560 of 1992. The Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, on 25th of January 1995, passed the Award, the operative portion of which, reads as under : “In the result, the Award is passed in favour of the petitioner setting-aside the impugned order dated 16.02.91 to the extent of removal. Consequently the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service. As a measure of punishment, it would be proper to deny the attendant benefits and back-wages. Necessary orders shall be issued within 30 days of publication of the Award.” In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that after his reinstatement, his pay is not fixed by extending the benefit of continuity of service, as ordered by the Tribunal. It is submitted that a representation is also filed by him before the Depot Manager on 18th of December 2009, but the same has not been considered. I have perused the copy of the representation, dated 18th December 2009. In the said representation, the petitioner has requested to fix his pay by extending the benefit of continuity of service and attendant benefits. However, from the Award of the Labour Court, it is clear that the attendant benefits are not awarded. Hence, the only question, which remains is, whether the pay of the petitioner is fixed in accordance with the directions issued by the Labour Court in its Award, dated 25th of January 1995, after his reinstatement into service. As much as the said aspect is not yet examined by the competent authority i.e. the 3rd respondent herein, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 18th December 2009, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the 3rd respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioner independently, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th April 2010 ajr