IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17691 of 1999 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C Piler Depot, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ananthapur. 2 Sri G. Natarajan, C/o 8/286, Court Road, Ananthapur. (R2 dismissed default as per court order 13/03/2003) .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order in the nature of writ of certiorari and call for the records relating to and in connection with the said award Dt.28- 10-1998 passed in ID No.255/95 by the Labour Court, Ananthapur and consequential G.O.Rt.No.2131 dt.9-12-98 issued by Labour Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-I) Department, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary illegal and contrary to law and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) through its Depot Manager, Piler Depot, Chittoor District, aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, dated 28.09.1998 in I.D.No.255 of 1995. The second respondent is a conductor in the petitioner- Corporation. When he was conducting the bus bearing No. AEZ 7165, on 24.12.1991, on the route from Piler to Balamvaripalli, the said bus was inspected by the checking oﬃcials, and, on the ground that during the said inspection, some cash and ticket irregularities were noticed, departmental proceedings were initiated against him, by framing necessary charges vide charge sheet dated 31.12.1991. Ultimately, after conducting necessary domestic enquiry in accordance with the APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulation, 1963, the enquiry oﬃcer has submitted his report. On the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry oﬃcer, ﬁnal orders were passed, removing the second respondent from service. Questioning the said order, the second respondent- workman has approached the Industrial Tribunal, Ananthapur by ﬁling an application under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 28.09.1998, ordered for reinstatement of the second respondent-workman with continuity of service, but without back wages. In this writ petition, it has been argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation that in view of the fact that the misconduct alleged on the part of the second respondent-workman has to be been held proved in the domestic enquiry, the Industrial Tribunal ought not to have granted the benefit of reinstatement with continuity of service. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, in view of the fact that insofar as the second respondent-workman is concerned, this Court had already dismissed the writ petition ﬁled against him by the petitioner-Corporation for default, through its order, dated 13.03.2003, which had become ﬁnal. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition ﬁled by the petitioner-Corporation against the second respondent, as early as on 13.03.2003, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition, which will affect the rights of the second respondent-workman. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) 26th August, 2008 Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ananthapur. 2 2 CCs to G.P. for Labour, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT) 3 2 CD copies.