HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2649 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner who worked as Conductor of A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, seeks a direction by way of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent-Corporation in not reinstating the petitioner into service pursuant to the Award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 55/98 as arbitrary and illegal. He had also questioned the order of rejection dated 3.8. 2005. The facts in brief are that the respondent-corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of ‘unauthorised absence’ and finally, by order dated 24.6.1995, the petitioner was removed from service. Questioning the said order of removal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act”) before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, which was numbered as I.D. No. 55 of 1998. By an Award dated 28.2.2001, the Labour Court while setting aside the order of removal, issued directions to the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without back wages on the principle of ‘no work, no pay’. Pursuant to the Award of the Tribunal, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.5.2005 to the 2nd respondent herein, seeking to accord permission to him to join duty. Through proceedings bearing No. P3/785 (21)/ 01-RM.N, dated 3.8.2005, the 2nd respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not responded to the reinstatement orders within the stipulated time. Petitioner alleges that the 2nd respondent has rejected his representation without any valid reasons. Hence, the present writ petition. While denying the contentions of the petitioner, the Respondent- Corporation filed counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the Award of the Tribunal, it issued reinstatement orders to the petitioner, which was also acknowledged by him. In spite of the same, the petitioner failed to report for duty within the stipulated time and therefore the respondents have rejected the request of the petitioner for reinstatement in the year 2005 and the same was also communicated to him through proceedings dated 3.8.2005. However, this Court on 11.11.2008, passed an interim in W.P.M.P. No. 3414 of 2008 directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service in pursuance of the Award of the Labour Court in I.D. No.55 of 1998, dated 24.5.2001, pending further orders, subject to the condition that the petitioner files an affidavit stating that he will not claim any monetary benefits from the date of passing of the award till the date he reports for duty; that he will not be entitled for continuity of service and other benefits from the date of the Award till the date of reporting to duty. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid interim orders of this Court, the petitioner has been reinstated into service on 2.1.2009 and he also retired from service on 28.2.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is seen from the record, that though the order of reinstatement was passed by the respondent-Corporation in the year 2001, the petitioner did not respond to the reinstatement orders for four long years. However, only in the year 2005, he submitted a representation dated 15.4.2005 requesting the respondent-Corporation to take him into duty and the said representation was rejected by it on 3.8.2005. Even after rejection of the said representation also, the petitioner waited for three more years and filed the present writ petition in the year 2008. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of rejection dated 3.8.2005. Inasmuch as the petitioner was reinstated into service pursuant to the interim orders of this Court dated 11.1.12008, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to pay the service benefits only for the actual service rendered by the petitioner and also for the period he worked pursuant to the order of reinstatement, which was passed by the respondent-Corporation in pursuance of the interim order of this Court granted in WPMP No. 3414 of 2008, dated 11.11.2008 till the date of retirement. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any other benefits, including monetary benefits, for the period during which he was out of service. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 10th March, 2010 pnb