IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 25140 of 2000 Between: N.S.Surya, S/o. Lalya. R/o. Satyanand Thanda, Post: Loyapalli, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND The A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager. Bus Depot, Ibrahimpatnam, R.R.Dist.,. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records in respect of I.D.No.86/99 from the Industrial Tribunal -II, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad and issue an appropriate Writ or direction particulary one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI and quash the impugned award dated 26/06/2000 made in I.D.No.86/99 published on 28/08/2000 as unjust, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents Corporation to reinstate the Petitioner into service alongwith all consequential beneﬁts in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled seeking to call for the records, by way of Writ of Certiorari, in respect of I.D. No.86 of 1999 from the Industrial Tribunal-II, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad and quash the impugned award dated 26-06-2000 made in I.D. No.86 of 1999 published on 28-08- 2000 as unjust, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of the respondent Corporation as Conductor in the year 1989. Since then he was continuously working till he was removed from service vide order dated 29-11-1995 alleging, among other allegations, that he collected fare of Rs.3.25ps., each from ten passengers, who have boarded the bus Ibrahimpatnam to Arutla Ex-Stages 18 to 27, and issued them the tickets of Rs.2.75ps., denominations. Being aggrieved by the same, he raised an Industrial Dispute No.86 of 1999 before the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad and the learned Tribunal conﬁrmed the order of removal. Assailing the same, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition raising several grounds to say that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to law. In response to the averments made by the petitioner, in the writ petition, the respondent Corporation has ﬁled its counter stating, inter alia, that against the removal order of the petitioner, he preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager/Regional Manager and subsequently raised an industrial dispute before the learned Tribunal. But in the appeal, the petitioner was reinstated into service and now he is working in Cantonment depot. It is also stated that the petitioner concealed the fact of his reinstatement into service before this Court and he did not take the fact of his reinstatement into service to the notice of the learned Tribunal also. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he came to know the fact of reinstatement of the petitioner into service today only, consequent to the counter served upon him by the learned standing counsel, and in view of the fact that the petitioner is reinstated into service, no further orders are required to be passed and the writ petition may be closed. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that initially the petitioner was removed from service and on considering the appeal preferred by him, before the appellate authority, he was reinstated into service. It is also submitted that before passing any orders in the appeal, the petitioner ﬁled I.D. before the learned Tribunal and subsequent to ﬁling of the I.D. the appellate authority has passed the orders reinstating the petitioner into service but the learned Tribunal confirmed the order of removal. Admittedly, initially, the petitioner was removed from service and on considering the appeal, preferred by the petitioner before the appellant authority, the petitioner was reinstated into service. Before passing any orders on the appeal, the petitioner filed I.D. before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal upheld the order of removal and it has no eﬀect, since the petitioner has already been taken into service and now he is working in Cantonment depot. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, recording the submission made by the learned counsel that no further orders are required to be passed, since the petitioner has already been reinstated into service, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 15-10-2008 LSK