THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.8 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The appellants/APSRTC before this Court is aggrieved
by the order dated 26.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.24330 of
2007 by the learned Single Judge granting notional increment
to the respondent/writ petitioner for the period he was out of
employment with all consequential benefits including arrears.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the respondent/writ petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and he was removed from service on 04.08.1993. The order of removal was subjected to judicial scrutiny and an award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, on 02.03.2000. The operative paragraph of the award reads as under:
"In the result, an award is passed by setting aside the order or removal dated 04.08.1993. The respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service with 50% of back wages from the date of filing of this petition i.e., 05.08.1995 and continuity of service from the date only and after reinstatement in terms of the award one increment of the petitioner shall be stopped with cumulative effect. The petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits from the date of suspension till the date of filing of this petition in this Tribunal and the said period shall not be counted for any purpose. This award shall come into force within 30 days from the date of its publication whichever is earlier by virtue of the powers conferred to this Court under Section 17-A of I.D. Act."
Against the aforesaid award, a writ petition was preferred by the employer and the writ petition was dismissed 2 i.e., W.P.No.15234 of 2000. Not only this, a writ appeal was also preferred i.e., W.A.No.1141 of 2000 and the same was also dismissed and a SLP was also preferred i.e., SLP.No.1331 of 2001 and the same was also dismissed. Meaning thereby, the award of the Labour Court has become final. As the writ petitioner was not being granted the benefits flowing out of the award, he came up before this Court and the learned Single Judge has passed the following order:
"1. When this matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by both the Counsel that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. and another vs. S. Narsagoud ((2003) 2 SCC 212) and as per the said judgment, the petitioner is entitled for notional increments for out of employment period.
2. Recording the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to grant notional increments to the petitioner for out of employment period, with all consequential benefits including arrears, if any. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed."
The award passed by the Labour Court made it very clear that the appellant/Corporation was directed to reinstate the writ petitioner into service with 50% back wages from the date of filing of the petition i.e., 05.08.1995 with continuity of service from the date only and after reinstatement in terms of the award and it was also held that there shall be punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The award further made it clear that the employee shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit from the date of suspension till the date of filing of the petition before the Labour Court and the said period shall not be counted for any 3 purposes. Meaning thereby, the award directing that the employee shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit from the date of suspension till the date of filing of the petition i.e., 05.08.1995 is affirmed in writ petition, writ appeal and SLP and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the learned Single Judge could have granted notional increments with consequential arrears for the period he was not in service.
Resultantly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The employer shall comply with the award passed by the Labour Court.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 24.11.2021 ES