M.R.SHAH,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 14.06.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.690 of 2013 the original respondents - corporation - employer has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under : a. That the respondent was appointed as a contract driver and was working with the appellant corporation. b. That he was subjected to departmental enquiry. c. That following the report of the Enquiry Officer, his service came to be terminated. d. That the departmental appeal also came to be rejected. e. Appeal before the Regional Manager also came to be rejected on merits. f. That thereafter the original writ petitioner raised the industrial dispute and the same came to be dismissed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court I, Hyderabad vide judgment and order in Industrial Dispute No.77 of 2011. g. That thereafter the workman original writ petitioner approached the High Court invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing Writ Petition No.34192 of 2012. h. That the learned Single Judge allowed the petition holding that the matter was not resintegra and was covered by the earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012. Though on behalf of the corporation an effort was made to distinguish the earlier decision on the ground that in the present case a fullfledged enquiry has been held, this distinction did not find acceptance by the learned Single Judge and solely considering the decision of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2786 of 2012 and without even considering the facts of the case, dispose of the writ petition by directing the original respondents to reengage the petitioner in service and extend the benefit of continuity of service to him from the date of termination till the date of his re-engagement except for the period during which he was absent. This was, however, without monetary benefit and was directed to count only for regularization. i. The above order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal. ;