THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1155 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned award dated 16.07.2001 made in I.D. No.44 of 1998 by the Labour Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is the A.P.S.R.T.C. (for short ‘the Corporation’) and the 1st respondent is the Workman. The workman filed I.D. No.44 of 1998 Under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act questioning the oral termination of the workman. Brief facts of the case are that the workman joined the service of the Corporation on 10.07.1984 as Cleaner and was working continuously in the depot of the Corporation at Sangareddy till he was retrenched from service in the month of March, 1989. It is also submitted that the Corporation authorities neither issued notice nor paid wages in lieu of notice or paid retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25-F of the Act. Though the Corporation authorities have assured that the case of the workman would be considered as and when vacancies arise but his case was not considered even though filled up many Cleaner posts directly without giving any opportunity to him. Therefore, the Corporation authorities have violated the principles laid down under Section 25-F of the Act. Hence, the workman raised industrial dispute. The case of the Corporation, inter alia, was that they never engaged the services of the petitioner as such there was no employer and employee relationship between the workman and the Corporation. Therefore, the question of his termination does not arise. After consider the case on either side, the learned Labour Court partly allowed the petition directing the Corporation authorities to reinstate the workman into service without back wages. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation filed the present writ petition. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that this Court on 25.01.2002 while issuing Rule nisi granted interim stay of execution of the award subject to the provisions contained under Section 17-B of the Act and pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the workman was reinstated into service and he is continuing in service. From a perusal of the award passed by the learned Labour Court it is apparent on the face of the record that the issue reiterated by the learned standing counsel in respect of relationship between the Management and the Workman had already been properly appreciated by the Labour Court, I do not see any reason to consider the same aspect again. Further, the learned standing counsel categorically submitted that the workman has already been reinstated into service and he is continuing in service and furthermore the workman has not preferred any petition as against the award passed by the learned Labour Court, I am not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the learned Labour Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the award under question does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 16.11.2010 LSK