THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 3749 OF 1997 Date: 18.01.2008 Between: The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Division, Guntur District. … Petitioner and K. William and another. … Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 3749 OF 1997 ORDER: W.P.M.P. No. 20338 of 2007 to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the restoration petition is not opposed and is accordingly allowed. W.P.M.P. (S.R). No. 59035 of 2007 to restore the writ petition on file is not opposed and as such is ordered and the writ petition is restored to file. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Guntur, in M.P. No. 18 of 1992 dated 19.06.1996, the present writ petition is filed. The first respondent was kept under suspension from 12.04.1967 onwards while he was working as a Conductor in the Petitioner Corporation. He was thereafter removed from service on 16.06.1967. The first respondent filed I.D. No. 20 of 1979 and the Labour Court, by its award dated 28.11.1980, directed the Petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent-workman into service with continuity of service and with 1/4th back wages and attendant benefits. The award was published on 12.04.1991 from which date the award came into force. The wages claimed in M.P. No. 18 of 1992 is for the period from 12.04.1981 till 07.07.1982 on which date the first respondent workman was actually reinstated to duty. The first respondent-workman filed M.P. No. 18 of 1992 claiming, in all, an amount of Rs.42,914/-. The Labour Court, by its order dated 19.06.1996 disallowed the claim of Rs.5,320/- towards uniform and chappal allowance and directed payment of Rs.37,594/-. The order of the Labour Court is on a detailed appreciation of the evidence adduced both on behalf of the first respondent-workman and on behalf of the Petitioner Corporation. Except to state that the first respondent had not joined duty and was, therefore, not entitled for wages till he joined duty on 07.07.1982, no other contention has been advanced before this Court by Sri R. Manmadha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Corporation. It is clear from the evidence on record that, despite the award of the Labour Court, the Petitioner Corporation did not even call upon the first respondent to join duty. The scope of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited and this Court would not, ordinarily, re-appreciate the evidence on record or sit in appeal over the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court. The order of the labour Court, Guntur, in M.P. No. 18 of 1992 dated 19.06.1996, does not suffer from any infirmity necessitating interference by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________________________ Date: 18.01.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR