THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.13117 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the A.P. Transco Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, questioning the Award dated 16.02.2002 passed in I.D. No.16 of 1998 by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent, Ch.Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Mallaiah, (hereinafter referred to ‘the workman’) filed I.D. No.16 of 1998 challenging the dismissal order dated 14.03.1997 passed by the writ petitioners. The Court below vide its Award dated 16.02.2002 while setting aside the order of dismissal, directed the writ petitioners to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service but without back wages, from the date of dismissal. Further, it is made clear that the workman is entitled to full pay from the date of suspension to the date of dismissal after deduction of subsistence allowance. Questioning the same, the writ petitioners filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the workman obtained the employment by way of impersonation. After conducting due enquiry, the workman was removed from service. Questioning the same, the workman filed I.D. No.16 of 1998 before the Court below. It is also submitted that the Court below, without proper appreciation of the evidence on record and the contentions of the petitioners that the judgment of the criminal Court is not binding on the petitioners, directed to reinstate the workman into service, which is contrary and illegal. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the workman submits that the charge of impersonation, on which, the workman was removed from service, and the charge for consideration before the criminal Court is one and the same. The criminal Court, after conducting full-fledged trial, acquitted the workman. Therefore, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the Court below passed the impugned award directing the writ petitioners to reinstate the workman into service. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required. However, he further submitted that this Court had an occasion to deal with the similar matter in W.P. No.6495 of 2006, therefore, following the same, sought to dismiss the present writ petition. Prima facie, it is to be seen whether the workman had obtained the employment by impersonation and whether the Court below had rightly considered the case. Further it is also to be seen whether this matter is squarely covered by the order passed in W.P. No.6495 of 2006. It is not in dispute that the workman is an employee of the petitioners, who was dismissed from the service on the allegation that he cheated the petitioners by impersonating one Ch.Venkateshwarlu S/o. Siddaiah and obtained the employment. Based on a complaint, enquiry was ordered into the said allegation and found that the said allegation is proved against the workman. Therefore, the workman was dismissed from service. The defense of the workman is that he never impersonated any one and at the instance of the petitioners only a criminal case was registered against him, wherein he was acquitted, after conducting full- fledged trial by the criminal Court. It could be seen from the award that on behalf of the petitioners no material evidence has been adduced, except the enquiry report and the show cause notice and final orders, to establish the allegation leveled against the workman. It could also be seen that the criminal as well as the departmental proceedings initiated against the workman were on the same set of facts namely, impersonation. The witnesses before the departmental enquiry were also examined before the criminal Court and the criminal Court after considering the evidence of the said witnesses found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge leveled against the workman. The criminal Court, after full-fledged trial, acquitted the workman. The contentions urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners were already urged before the Court below and the Court below had rightly discussed the same in detail and came to the conclusion. The Court below after taking into consideration all the evidence, material as well as oral, rightly directed the petitioners to reinstate the workman into service. Further, the facts and circumstance of the W.P. No.6495 of 2006 and the facts and circumstances of the case on hand are similar and therefore, this case is squarely covered by the order dated 09.12.2010 passed in W.P. No.6495 of 2006. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also following the order dated 09.12.2010 passed in W.P. No.6495 of 2006, I do not see any reason to interfere with the award dated 16.02.2002 passed in I.D. No.16 of 1998. Therefore, the impugned award is confirmed and this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 30.04.2011 LSK