IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 816 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/11/2008 in WP NO : 21605 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: G.B. Reddy S/o. Bheemreddy R/o. 10-9-114, Shivajinagar, Nizamabad District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Labour Court-II, Rep. by its Presiding Officer. 4th Floor, Chandravihar building, M.J.Road, Hyderabad, 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Nizamabad District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :816 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Challenging the order dated 6.11.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.21605 of 1999, the present writ appeal has been preferred. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the above writ petition seeking to set aside the award dated 6.10.1993 passed in I.D.No.111 of 1992 insofar as seniority list and denial of backwages are concerned and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent corporation to pay him the backwages along with restoration of seniority. The learned single Judge having observed that the petitioner has admitted that he collected Rs.10/- towards luggage charges but however, he sought to defend stating that he forgot to issue luggage ticket, and in view of the proved misconduct, imposition of punishment of reduction in the seniority by placing him at the bottom of the seniority list by the tribunal, cannot be said to be disproportionate and apart from that, there is no explanation as to the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court nearly six years after the award of the Tribunal, dismissed the writ petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. On the face of the record, it is apparent that the appellant has preferred the writ petition nearly after a period of six years from the date of the award. In this regard, no explanation was offered by the appellant. Insofar as the findings of the learned single Judge as to the punishment of reduction in the seniority and denial of backwages are concerned, in view of the admission of the appellant as to the collection of luggage charges and the failure to issue the ticket to that effect, the defence set up by him that he forgot to issue luggage ticket, cannot be sustainable. In this view of the matter, we feel that the order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _____________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Dated: 23rd June, 2009 Gurc/dvs THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :816 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) 23rd June , 2009