THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12062 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 17.04.2002, in I.D.No.14 of 2002 passed by the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The I.D. was filed by respondent No.2 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the order of dismissal, dated 07.07.1999, passed against him by the petitioner. The principal controversy was as to the genuinity of the claim of respondent No.2 for being employed on account of his father being medically rendered unfit. The Labour Court passed an award, dated 17.04.2002, setting aside the order of dismissal and holding that the petitioner shall reinstate respondent No.2 and pay back wages. Several grounds are urged by the petitioner in its challenge to the award. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. It is not in dispute that identical issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.816 of 2004. In its order, dated 21.10.2010, this Court dismissed the writ petition upholding the award, but directing that respondent No.2 therein shall not be entitled to be paid any difference of wages for the period during which the writ petition was pending. One difference is that while in the instant case, the Labour Court awarded back wages, in the award that was subject matter of W.P.No.816 of 2004, no back wages were awarded. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court feels that the direction as to the payment of back wages cannot be sustained and the relief in terms of W.P.No.816 of 2004 deserves to be given in this writ petition also. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed upholding the award, dated 17.04.2002, passed in I.D.No.14 of 2002 in all respects except to the extent it awarded back wages. It is directed that the petitioner shall reinstate respondent No.2 into service within four weeks from today. The petitioner shall not be under obligation to pay difference of amount for the period during which the writ petition was pending. The pay of respondent No.2, however, shall be fixed, by taking into account, the length of service. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:30.12.2010. kdl