Depot Manager, APSRTC vs Ch. Mogili

The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 13.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16335 of 2000.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that against the order dated 13.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16335 of 2000, the

respondent No.1/workman has preferred a writ appeal i.e., W.A.No.551 of 2008 and the same has been dismissed by the Division Bench by an order

dated 12.06.2008. The aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench reads as under:-

“1. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant.

The appellant â€" petitioner was a conductor, who was removed from service because of his unauthorized absence. He approached the Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court by filing I.D.No.14 of 1998. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the respondent â€

employer was just and proper. However, exercising power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), the

Labour Court directed the employer to appoint the appellant â€" petitioner as a fresh recruit.

Being aggrieved by the aforestated order, the appellant â€" petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.16335 of 2000. The petition has been allowed partly

by an order dated 13.2.2008 whereby the learned Single Judge has modified the order to the effect that he should be reinstated into service with

continuity of service, but without any back wages and without any attendant benefits.

Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed.

We have gone through the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Labour Court. As the enquiry proceedings had been conducted in a

just and proper manner and as the Labour Court had exercised its power under Section 11-A of the Act, while directing appointment of the appellant

â€" petitioner as a fresh recruit, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has, on the contrary, passed an order in favour of the appellant so as to see

that some more benefit is given to him, in our opinion, no further benefit can be given to him. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order

passed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.â€​

Meaning thereby, in a writ appeal preferred by the respondent No.1/workman, the Division Bench has held that the respondent No.1/workman will not

be entitled for continuity of service.

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, as the Division Bench has already decided the issue, the judgment delivered in W.A.No.551 of 2008

dated 12.06.2008, which has attained finality, shall certainly be binding upon the parties.

With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.