IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.809 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/02/2008 in W.P.No.3333 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court) Between: S.M.N. Hussain, E. 52635, R/o. H.No. 12-2-259, Muradnagar, Hyderabad-28. ... APPELLANT AND A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Depot Manager, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR. V. NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent: K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per HC, J) Being aggrieved by the order dated 28-02-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3333 of 2000, this appeal has been filed. 2. The appellant was working as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation. His services were terminated. By virtue of the order passed by the Labour Court, he was reinstated into service. After reinstatement order was passed, the appellant did not report for duty for a considerably long period. In the circumstances, registered letter was sent to the appellant by the respondent- employer calling upon him to report for duty. The registered letter was returned with a postal endorsement “addressee not available for 7 days. Therefore returned to the sender”. The said registered letter was sent to the appellant-employee at the address, which he had given in the cause title before the Labour Court. Thereafter, a notice was published in the Urdu Daily ‘Munsif’ calling upon him to report for duty. All these eﬀorts of the respondent-employer to ask the appellant-employee to resume his duties were in vain. Thereafter, the appellant ﬁled execution proceedings before the Labour Court. The Labour Court directed the respondent-employer to pay backwages and reinstate the appellant into service. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petition was ﬁled, which has been allowed, and therefore, the appellant-employee has approached this court by way of this appeal. 4. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was justiﬁed in coming to the conclusion that the appellant- employee was not inclined to resume his duties and all sincere eﬀorts made by the respondent-employer to ask the appellant-employee to resume his duties had failed. As a matter fact, in our opinion, no employee who is reinstated in service would not resume his duties. 5. The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others V. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and others[1]. We have gone through the said judgment. Looking to the facts of the case, especially when not only registered letter was sent to the appellant-employee but a notice was also given in the newspaper, in our opinion, the judgment referred to by the learned Advocate for the appellant would not help him. The endorsement made by the postman to the eﬀect that he had made 7 eﬀorts to serve the registered letter to the addressee cannot be dispelled. In the instance case, the address of the appellant-employee was stated correctly on the registered letter, which was sent to him. It is not the case that the address at which the registered letter was sent was incorrect. The address was correct but the appellant was not found at his residence. 6. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge and upon hearing the learned Advocates, we do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was justified in allowing the petition. 7. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. September 9, 2008 MRR [1] 1998 SCC (L&S) 1837