High Court for State of TelanganaWP/12200/2003disposed of no costs

The Depot Manager., Apsrtc., v. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court.,

2015-11-06S.Ravi Kumar2 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.12200 of 2003 ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by APSRTC challenging the order of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, dated 26.03.2003 in M.P.No.51 of 1996.

2. As seen from the record, respondent No.2 herein field I.D.No.31 of 1987 challenging the order of dismissal dated 13.11.1997. The Labour Court, Anantapur, dismissed I.D.No.31 of 1987, questioning the same, respondent No.2 filed W.P.No.19754 of 1987 and this Court by order dated 28.01.1992 allowed the writ and directing petitioners herein to reinstate respondent No.2 into service within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order without back wages and without continuity of service from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement for the purpose of promotion only. It appears, respondent No.2 was reinstated into service and thereafter as notional increments are not given to him, he approached Labour Court and filed M.P.No.51 of 1996 claiming an amount of Rs.42,131.28 ps.

and the Labour Court after considering the objection of the Department and also considering the orders of this Court in W.P.No.2005 of 2002 dated 09.10.2012 allowed the M.P. on 26.03.2003 directing petitioners herein to pay the amount to respondent No.2 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. APSRTC preferred this writ petition challenging the orders of the Labouer Court dated 26.03.2003 contending that the said orders are not in accordance with law.

3. As seen from the record, this writ petition was dismissed on 18.08.2010 against respondent No.2 and no steps were taken to get writ petition restored against respondent No.2, who is beneficiary. On account of dismissal of writ against respondent No.2, the order

passed in favour of respondent No.2 in M.P.No.51 of 1996 dated 26.03.2003 has become final and as such, the cause does not survive against the beneficiary i.e., respondent No.2 herein.

4. Considering these aspects, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

5. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

__________________ S. RAVI KUMAR, J 6th November 2015 mar