N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 348 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05/12/2007 in WP NO : 3341 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gajuwaka depot, Visakhapatnam dist. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, rep. by its Presiding Officer. Visakhapatnam. 2 E. Prasad S/o Apparao Plot No.118, Ex-Servicemen Colony, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : The Court made the following : JUDGMENT Per Anil R. Dave, CJ Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3341 of 1999 dated 5.12.2007, this appeal has been filed by the employer-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Respondent No.2 – conductor, who was proceeded in a departmental enquiry, was removed from service. Being aggrieved by the order of removal, ultimately, Respondent No.2-conductor had approached the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, by an award-dated 16.4.1998 held that respondent No.2- conductor was not guilty of the charges leveled against him. Being aggrieved by the award, the appellant-Corporation had filed the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed. Upon consideration of the material on record, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Labour Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and rightly come to the conclusion that Respondent No.2 –conductor was not guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly affirmed the finding recorded by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge, however, modified the award to the effect that the respondent No.2 - conductor should be paid only 75% back wages instead of 100% back wages as directed by the Labour Court. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and have also gone through the award and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Looking to the fact that concurrent findings of fact have been arrived at by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge and in view of the fact that appreciation of evidence by the Labour court is just and proper, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 2nd April, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J vtv