IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15159 of 1995 Between: 1 The Child Development Project Officer Official Colony D.No.16-2-22, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam 2 The Regional Assistant Director Women & Child Welfare D.No.10-5-2 Ramragar, Visakhapatnam 3 The Director Women & Child Welfare Behind Sarathi Studio Sanathnagar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Yellavilli Appalanarasamma W/o. Nageswararao Kapparada Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Chairman & Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam . .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : None. Counsel for Respondent No.1 :Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2 : None. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside award, dated 24.12.1994 in I.D.No.78 of 1990 on the file of respondent No.2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and perused the record. Respondent No.1 was appointed as Anganwadi Helper in November 1981, on a monthly honorarium of Rs.90/-. She was a part-time worker engaged from 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. Her services were terminated on 05.10.1989. Questioning the said termination, respondent No.1 raised industrial dispute by way of I.D.No.78 of 1990 before respondent No.2. The said I.D., was allowed by the impugned award passed on 24.12.1994. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that at the time of admission of the writ petition, this Court granted stay of back wages only, and therefore, respondent No.1 was taken back into service. He fairly submitted that the award to the extent of award of back wages may be set aside. Inasmuch as respondent No.1 is stated to be taken back into service in pursuance of the award, which statement is not denied as no one is present for the petitioners at the hearing and more than 13 years have elapsed since then, I find it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following terms: 1) the award of respondent No.2 to the extent of directing reinstatement of respondent No.1 is confirmed, and 2) the award to the extent of directing payment of back wages is quashed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, interim order, dated 14.07.1995, is vacated and WPMP.No.18498 of 1995 is dismissed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated:26.12.2008 GJ