THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1341 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.11.2002 passed in M.P.No. 7 of 1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Hyderabad. Petitioner is the workman. Respondent No.2 is the management. It appears, the petitioner initially joined the services of the respondent Corporation as a cleaner on 21.09.1980 and subsequently promoted as Driver. While so, on certain allegations of misconduct said to have been committed by him, he was removed from service vide order dated 09.04.1987, after conducting a detailed enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed review petition before the reviewing authority and also simultaneously raised a dispute, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court, in I.D.No. 453 of 1998. During pendency of the said I.D.No.453 of 1998, the reviewing authority passed order on 29.08.1988 in the review petition filed by the petitioner, ordering reinstatement of the petitioner into service, but however, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated into service. Subsequently, the Labour Court passed orders on 05.02.1992 in I.D.No.453 of 1998, directing the management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and 50% of backwages. Aggrieved thereby, the management filed W.P.No.9282 of 1992, which resulted in dismissal by order dated 27.08.1997. While so, the petitioner filed the present M.P.No.7 of 1999 before the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D.Act, for computation of monetary benefits payable by the management, and it is allowed by the impugned order dated 18.11.2002, directing the management to pay a sum of Rs.78.60 ps. and to extend the notional increments with effect from 30.09.1999 adding to the last pay drawn by the petitioner. It was further ordered that fixation be done within 2 months from the date of the order and the arrears, after fixing of new scale after adding notional increments, be paid within two months, failing which the amount would carry 12% interest per annum. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. As seen from the record, it is evident that questioning the order of removal from service, the workman filed review petition before the reviewing authority and simultaneously filed I.D.No.453 of 1998 before the Labour Court, and by virtue of the orders dated 29.09.1998 passed in the said review petition, the workman was reinstated into service. Admittedly, neither the workman nor the management has brought to the notice of the Labour Court in I.D.No.453 of 1998 as to the order dated 29.09.1998 passed in the review petition filed by the workman, however the Labour Court, by its order dated 05.02.1992, disposed of I.D.No.453 of 1998, directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and 50% of backwages. Since the order dated 29.09.1998 passed in the review petition filed by the workman was not challenged, the question of raising a dispute under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D.Act relying on the award passed on 05.02.1992 in I.D.No.453 of 1998 does not arise. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 07.02.2011 v v