VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI, J. - (1.)WE have heard learned learned counsel Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. R.V. Desai, for the respondent.
(2.)THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed, challenging the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 3rd May 2005 and 19th July, 2005, passed in Special Civil Application No. 5892 of 2002, by which the Learned Single Judge has set aside the award of the Labour Court and has directed for reinstatement with back wages.
The back wages were granted to the respondent on the agreement of Learned counsel for the parties with effect from 1st May 2005 till the actual date of reinstatement. The reason given by the learned Single Judge for reinstatement has been mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of the judgment dated 3rd May, 2005, which is extracted below :

"Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the evidence on record, it is clear that the respondent has terminated the service of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has committed misconduct of consumption of liquor and misuse of Jeep etc. while on duty. The respondent had also made same allegations against Mr. Swami, who was superior officer of the petitioner at the relevant time. The respondent has made the allegation of misconduct alleged against the petitioner and Mr. Swami jointly. However, Mr. Swami, superior officer and co-accused of the petitioner has been reinstated by the respondent in view of the order passed in the departmental appeal preferred by him. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, misconduct committed by the petitioner and the decision of this Court in the case of GSRTC V/s. Vikram Jethabhai Sustreja, in Special Civil application No. 11610 of 2000, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court erred in rejecting the reference preferred by the petitioner. The Award passed by the Labour Court is, therefore, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. So far as the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned. I am in quite agreement with the ratio laid down therein, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same will not helpful to the respondent.
The back wages paid as per agreement of the modified vide order dated 19th July 2007, parties, was the relevant part of the said judgment is being extracted below :
"Heard the learned advocate for the parties. Both the learned Advocates have agreed to proposal of granting back wages from 1-5-2005 till the actual date of the reinstatement. Therefore, paragraph No. 5 of the judgment order dated 3-5-2005 passed in special civil Application No. 5892 of 2002 is modified to the following extent. "The respondent is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service as well as back wages from 1-5-2005 till the actual date of reinstatement. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs". This speaking to minutes stands disposed of accordingly."

(3.)THE charges were similar against the respondent as well as Mr. Swami, who was superior officer therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in granting same treatment to the respondent, as was granted to Mr. Swami. We do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.