JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. 1. This inter-court appeal is filed by appellant against the order dated 2nd July 2016 made in Writ Petition No. 200866/2016 (S-KSRTC) by the learned Single Judge of this court, dismissing the writ petition filed by appellant. The brief facts of the case are as under:- 2. The respondent who was working as a Driver in the appellant corporation was dismissed from service on 24.05.2013 for unauthorized absent of 191 days. He filed industrial dispute in KID No. 14/2013, the tribunal has allowed the petition and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits and denied back-wages. The respondent without joining the duty after the award came into force, filed an application No. 24/2015 before Labour Court, seeking arrears of wages from 01.03.2015 to 08.04.2015. The Labour Court considering the entire material on record by the order dated 21.10.2015 allowed the application under Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act 1947. 3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by Labour Court the Appellant-management filed W.P. No. 2000866/2016 before this court. This court considering the entire material on record dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal is filed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for parties to the lis. 5. Sri Subhash Mallapur learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is erroneous without considering the call letters served on the respondent to join the service. The learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the respondent never came forward to join duty instead of got issued notice which was replied by the appellant. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court. 6. Per contra Sri Prakash S.M for Sri Sanjay M Joshi learned counsel for respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge by this court. 7. In view of the rival contentions urged before learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is that; “Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for any interference in the intra-court appeal in the facts and circumstances of the present case?” 8. 7. In view of the rival contentions urged before learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is that; “Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for any interference in the intra-court appeal in the facts and circumstances of the present case?” 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent-workmen filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act on 20.07.2015 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vijayapur for claiming an arrears from 01.03.2015 to 31.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,04,596/- with interest from the appellant contending that against the order passed by the appellant, he has raised Industrial Dispute in KID No. 14/2013 and the Tribunal has set aside the dismissal order and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent in to service with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. 10. Inspite of the same, the appellant has not paid the arrears, therefore he filed an application, the said application was resisted, on considering the same the Labour Court by an order dated 21st October 2015 allowed the application under the provision of Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act, 1947 and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,596/- to the applicant towards an arrears of wages for the period from 1.03.2015 to 31.07.2015 within three months from the date of the order. Hence, writ petition was filed. 11. The learned Single Judge considering the entire material on record, recorded a specific finding that- “6. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that although the petitioner-corporation had claimed that the call letter dated 8.04.2015 was served upon the respondent, but it failed to prove the said fact. Despite the fact that the Corporation had submitted postal receipt and postal acknowledgment as Exs.R6 and R7, the Corporation failed to prove the fact that the acknowledgment receipt contained the respondent’s signature. Most importantly, even the respondent was not confronted with the postal acknowledgment receipt during the course of cross-examination. 7. Furthermore, the learned Labour Court has noticed the fact that since the petitioner-Corporation had failed to implement the award, it was issued a show cause notice. Most importantly, even the respondent was not confronted with the postal acknowledgment receipt during the course of cross-examination. 7. Furthermore, the learned Labour Court has noticed the fact that since the petitioner-Corporation had failed to implement the award, it was issued a show cause notice. Although the petitioner-Corporation claimed before the Labour Court that a reply to the show cause notice was given, but even the reply had not been submitted before the learned Labour Court. Thus, the learned Labour Court was justified in concluding that a material document had been withheld from its purview. Hence, the learned Labour Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner-Corporation. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the learned Labour court has drawn its conclusion on the basis of conjunctures and surmises.” 12. On careful perusal of the entire material on record, clearly indicates that though the appellant claimed issuance of call letter, but no material is produced before this court to show that the call letter was received by the respondent workmen and the contention of appellant was negated by the learned Single Judge. We are of the considered view, that no good ground is made-out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in this intra-court appeal. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.