IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.3750 of 1997 and 11861 of 1998 WRIT PETITION NO:3750 of 1997 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad-II Depot, HYDERBAD. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 K.Jogi Reddy, S/o. K.Venkat Reddy, H.No.1-69, Chaitahypuri, Dilsukhnagar, HYDERBAD. 2 The Presidisng Officer, Labour Court-1, HYDERABAD. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:11861 of 1998 Between: K. Jogi Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy R/o 1-69, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad-II Depot, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 06.08.1996 in Case No.6 of 1995 passed by respondent No.1. Sri M.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was some confusion in the last paragraph of the order passed in S.A.No.13 of 1993, by which, respondent No.2 was directed to be reinstated apart from awarding compensation of Rs.7,700/- for the period from 25.08.1994 to 24.07.1995. A perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 shows that he clarified this controversy by stating that he perused the original file of the appellate authority, which showed that the last paragraph of the order regarding restatement of the applicant without back wages was written by the appellate authority himself in his own hand writing. He held that respondent No.2 herein is entitled to receive the compensation amount of Rs.7,700/- under the said award. The petitioner has failed to raise any valid ground to invalidate this order of respondent No.1. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni