Telangana High Court
Depot Manager Ap.Srtc vs Bathini Sarangapani, on 11 June, 2021
Bench: Hima Kohli, A.Abhishek Reddy
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
Writ Appeal No.1251 of 2017
Date :26.02.2020
Between:
The Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation (Now TSRTC)
Rep.by its Depot Manager,
Mahabubabad Depot,
Warangal District
...Appellant
And
Bathini Sarangapani
and another ..Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. B. Mayur Reddy,
SC for APSRTC
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. P.Sridhar Rao
The Court made the following:
2 HCJ & AARJ
WA.No.1251/2017
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Abhishek Reddy)
The present Writ Appeal is filed by the Corporation against
the interim order, dated 24.04.2017, passed in W.P.M.P.
No.14778 of 2017, in W.P.No.11871 of 2017, whereby the
learned Single Judge had suspended the Award, dated
28.09.2015, passed in I.D.No.29/2009 on the file of the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, subject to
payment of 50% back wages within a period of six weeks.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the employee-
respondent No.1 herein, who was working as a driver, was
removed from service by the appellant Corporation on
13.02.2007. The Departmental Appeal preferred by the
employee-respondent No.1 herein was rejected on 31.07.2007;
even his review petition was also rejected on 12.03.2008.
Thereafter, employee-the respondent No.1 herein approached
the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, challenging
his removal from service, and seeking reinstatement into service
with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant
benefits. After going through the entire material on record, vide
order, dated 28.09.2005, in I.D.No.29 of 2009, the Labour Court
has directed the appellant Corporation to reinstate the
emoployee-respondent No.1 into service with continuity of
service, full back wages, and all other attendant benefits.
Aggrieved by the Award, dated 28.09.2005, passed by the
Labour Court, the appellant Corporation has filed writ petition
wherein a learned Single Judge, at the time of admission of the
3 HCJ & AARJ
WA.No.1251/2017
Writ Petition, has passed the impugned order in W.P.M.P.
No.14778 of 2017.
3. Today, when the matter is listed, it is submitted by Sri B.
Mayur Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
appellant Corporation, that at the time of admission of the
present Writ Appeal, on 30.08.2017, this Court has passed the
following order:
Notice to respondent No.1
Personal service is permitted.
Post on 04.10.2017.
Pending further orders, order, dated 24.04.2017, in
W.P.M.P.No.14778 of 2017 in W.P.No.11871 of 2017 of the learned
Single Judge is stayed, subject to the appellant reinstating
respondent No.1 into service within two weeks from today.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant
Corporation, on instructions, has stated that as per the
directions of this Court, dated 30.08.2017, the employee-
respondent No.1 herein has been reinstated, and is presently
working in the appellant Corporation.
5. In view of the above said submission, there is nothing to
be adjudicated in the present Writ Appeal as the appeal is only
against an Interlocutory Order, and the said Order is already
implemented. The appellant has to work out its remedies in the
main writ petition, which is pending before the learned Single
Judge.
4 HCJ & AARJ
WA.No.1251/2017
6. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. This appeal being
devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, HCJ
__________________
A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J
26th February, 2020.
smr/sur
