IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 30068 of 1998 Between: Executive Engineer O & M Divn II SRSP Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 J.Rajender, S/o. Sayanna, 2-2-1137/8/1, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad-44. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue an appropriate writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to I.D.No.803/92 dt.4- 9-96 on the ﬁle of the 2nd Respondent and quash the same as illegal and opposed to I.D.Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.G.RAVINDRA REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: The writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order of the second respondent in I.D.No.803 of 1992 dated 4.9.1996. By the aforesaid order, the second respondent came to conclusion that the impugned termination of the 1st respondent was wholly unjustified, illegal and is liable to be set aside. The petitioner approached this court by this writ petition and obtained interim stay of payment of back wages subject to payment of half of the same within a period of six weeks. However, the said order dated 2.11.1998 was not complied with. On the second occasion, when the vacate petition came up for consideration of this court on 16.6.2000, it was again noticed that the said interim order has not been complied with even by then and accordingly, the interim order was vacated. In the present writ petition, the learned Government Pleader contends that the conclusions of the Labour Court are wholly unjustiﬁed and perverse and he relied upon the statement of MW- 1, who is examined on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner also claims that this matter was already decided in the light of the judgment of the writ petition No.1190 of 1987 and as such the workman is not entitled to any relief. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. The conclusions of the second respondent does not appear to be either illegal or perverse inasmuch as the same is based upon due consideration of the evidence of workman, who was examined as WW-1 and Exs W.1 to W.7 marked through him. The aforesaid documents were also confronted to MW-1 and it was accepted that Ex.W.1 was signed by his predecessor Executive Engineer and that Ex.W-5 speciﬁcally mentions that WW-1 has worked for ﬁve years continuously in Division-I. The evidence of the workman was therefore rightly considered by the Labour Court coupled with that of the succeeding Executive Engineer, who was not personally aware but has spoken only on the record. The conclusions of the Labour Court in the award therefore cannot be faulted and much less can not be said to be perverse. The writ petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, no order as to costs. ____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 18th August, 2008 PNV ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}