IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7846 of 1999 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Depot Manager Hyderabad-I Depot, C.B.S. Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer Labour court-I, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad 2 Sri P. Ahmed Hussain Khan S/o P.A. Sattar Khan R/o H.No. 12-15-437, O.U.Campus, Manikeswari Nagar, Hyderabad 500007 .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records from the 1st respondent in I.D. No.34 of 1998 dt. 26/11/1998 published in G.O. Rt. No. 2145 dt. 11/12/1998 and quash the Award and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation through its Depot Manager, Hyderabad challenging the award dated 26.11.1998 passed by the Labour Court – I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.34 of 1998. The second respondent was working as a Cleaner in the petitioner-Corporation. On the ground of proved misconduct, he was removed from service vide proceedings No.P1/475(1)/96-H1, dated 23.10.1996. When the said order was questioned by raising an industrial dispute in I.D.No.34 of 1998, the Tribunal by its award dated 26.11.1998 while setting aside the order of removal ordered for reinstatement of the second respondent and awarded the punishment of stoppage of two increments. Though the said award is questioned in the present writ petition, the writ petition was dismissed so far as the second respondent is concerned for non-payment of batta within the given time as per Court order dated 21.02.2003. Though nearly six years lapsed, no steps have been taken to set aside the order dated 21.02.2003 and the same has become final. Although this writ petition is filed raising several grounds assailing the validity of the impugned award, in view of dismissal of the writ petition so far as the second respondent is concerned, no relief can be granted by modifying the award passed by the Labour Court. If any order is passed in the present writ petition, it will affect the rights of the second respondent and as much as the writ petition is already dismissed against the second respondent, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Date: 28.01.2009 va