IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 551 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/02/2008 in WP No: 16335 of 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Ch.Mogili S/o.Mondaiah E.No.62430 R/o.Warangal ... APPELLANT AND 1) Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal, rep. by its Presiding Officer, 2) The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hanamkonda Bus Depot Warangal District ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for Respondent No.2: SMT. P. RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following: Oral Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant. 2. The appellant – petitioner was a conductor, who was removed from service because of his unauthorized absence. He approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court by filing I.D.No.14 of 1998. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the respondent – employer was just and proper. However, exercising power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), the Labour Court directed the employer to appoint the appellant – petitioner as a fresh recruit. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order, the appellant – petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.16335 of 2000. The petition has been allowed partly by an order dated 13.2.2008 whereby the learned Single Judge has modified the order to the effect that he should be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without any back wages and without any attendant benefits. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed. 5. We have gone through the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Labour Court. As the enquiry proceedings had been conducted in a just and proper manner and as the Labour Court had exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Act, while directing appointment of the appellant – petitioner as a fresh recruit, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has, on the contrary, passed an order in favour of the appellant so as to see that some more benefit is given to him, in our opinion, no further benefit can be given to him. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ June 12, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRT}