THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No. 52 OF 2001 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by the order made in W.P.No.9198 of 1995, dated 14-09-2000, whereby, the learned single Judge, conﬁrmed the Award passed by the Labour Court ordering reinstatement, continuity of service and 1/3rd back wages, the Corporation preferred the present Appeal. It is the case of the appellant Corporation that the 2nd respondent while working as a controller made an unauthorized endorsement in SR permitting one of the family members of the driver concerned to travel free, which is a serious misconduct and on that ground, he has been removed from service. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the 2nd respondent was removed from service in 1985, whereas, he raised the Industrial Dispute only in 1990, after a lapse of ﬁve years. He further contends that the 2nd respondent has no good record of service. According to him, the learned Single Judge erred in relying on the case of another controller, where the facts are entirely different from this case. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent workman contends that aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the 2nd respondent preferred I.D.No.428 of 1992 before the Labour Court III, Hyderabad and the Labour Court after due exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act and after perusing the material on record, passed an Award reinstating the 2nd respondent with continuity of service and limiting the back wages to that of 1/3rd. We have perused the material available on record. The learned Single Judge has recorded a ﬁnding that the Tribunal having seen that the Corporation itself reinstated one Mr. Gangulu, another Controller who permitted three family members of a Conductor’s family to travel freely, held that the Corporation has shown hostile discrimination against the petitioner and passed the award reinstating him. We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly confirmed the Award. We do not see any illegality and inﬁrmity in the order of the learned single Judge to interfere with it. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. -------------------- ------- Ghulam Mohammed, J --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 22nd November 2011