HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.578 of 2007 Date: November 09, 2010 Between: The Commissioner, Srikalahasthi Municipality, Srikalahasthi, rep. by M. Chalapathi. … Petitioner And 1. The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, A.P. and 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.578 of 2007 ORDER: The Commissioner, Srikalahasthi Municipality, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District, assails the common award dated 18.3.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.25 of 2000 and I.D. No.62 of 2000. By the said common award, the Labour Court set aside the termination of the workmen, respondents 2 and 3 herein, from service and directed the Municipality to reinstate them with continuity of service and attendant benefits along with half of the back wages. 2. Relevant to note, this Court by order dated 22.9.2008, taking note of the failure of the Municipality to comply with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per its earlier interim order dated 23.02.2007, granted liberty to the workmen to execute the common award. Pursuant to the afore-stated development, the Municipality appears to have reinstated both the workmen in service under proceedings dated 08.4.2010. 3. In so far as the Municipality’s challenge to the common award is concerned, it is to be noticed that the Labour Court granted relief to respondents 2 and 3 herein being apprised of the fact that identically situated workmen who had secured a similar common award in I.D.No.161 of 1994 and I.D. No.162 of 1994 had been reinstated by the Municipality pursuant to the confirmation of the said award by this Court. A copy of the order dated 06.9.2002 passed by this Court in W.P. No.34154 of 1998 confirming the common award dated 20.4.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.161 of 1994 and I.D. No.162 of 1994 is placed before me. Perusal of the said order reflects that this Court, being of the opinion that no illegality or irregularity was manifest in the common award dated 20.4.1998, upheld the same and dismissed the writ petition. 4. Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the petitioner-Municipality, does not dispute that the workmen covered by I.D.No.161 of 1994 and I.D.No.162 of 1994 were granted relief pursuant to the common award dated 20.4.1998. That being so, in the light of the findings rendered by the Labour Court that the workmen in the present case also stood identically situated, no interference with the award under challenge is warranted. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed confirming the common award dated 18.3.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.25 of 2000 and I.D.No.62 of 2000. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: November 09, 2010. BSB