{Per B. Prakash Rao, J.)

Heard Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Smt. P. Rajani Reddy, learned Government Pleader for APSRTC.

2. This appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful 1st respondent-workman assailing the order dated 28-10-2005 in allowing the writ petition in W.P. No.14079 of 2005 filed by the respondent-Corporation, seeking the correctness of the award passed in 1.0. No.149 of 2003, dated 11-11-2004.

3. A few facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the 1st respondent-workman, appellant herein, has been working as a Conductor with the respondents-Corporation. While so, on certain charges of having committed ticket irregularities, he faced the departmental enquiry and was removed from service and in appeal, the appellate authority, as per order dated 19-10-2002, though confirmed the finding of the primary authority in regard to the charges as framed, however, considering the past good record, took a lenient view and directed to reinstate the appellant into service. Thus, the punishment of removal from service has been modified into deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, treating the period of absence i.e., from the date of removal till reinstatement as not on duty and also further directed him to pay the Security Deposit afresh before joining his new post.

4. Challenging the said punishment, though a lesser one, imposed by the appellate authority, the appellant invoked the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act for short) before the Labour Court raising the dispute with regard to the correctness thereon. Ultimately, the Labour Court observed that the punishment given to the appellant is not justified and accordingly, set aside the order passed by the appellate authority, and restored the increments of the appellant and further directed to treat the period of absence as on duty. Challenging the said award the respondents-Corporation filed the present writ petition.

5. The main contention that was urged before the learned single Judge was with regard to the very competence of the Labour Court to entertain the application under Section 2-A (2) of the Act, against an order passed by the appellate authority since it could not fall within the purview of Section 2-A (2) of the Act as contemplated therein and therefore, the Labour Court ought not have entertained the application. The learned single Judge, agreeing with the objection raised by the respondents Corporation, held that having regard to the expression used in the said provision, the punishment as imposed against the appellant workman would not be covered and thus no dispute arises nor can be raised at his instance. Hence, this appeal by the employee.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant workman, referring to the expressions used in the said provision under Section 2-A (2) of the Act, strenuously contended that where an employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer on orders passed in appeal or otherwise, though modified, would be connected with, or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination and shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding other workman nor union of workmen is not a party to the dispute and therefore, the appellant is entitled to file an application directly before the Labour Court.

7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation sought to sustain the order of the learned single Judge contending that having regard to the nature of the ultimate punishment imposed by the appellate authority, the appellant is not entitled to file such an application before the Labour Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, the question that falls for consider