The Regional Manager, vs V. Kurmaiah,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4277 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                              AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                                 W.A.No.60 of 2019
JUDGMENT:       (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



      The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

03.10.2018        passed           by       the       learned           Single      Judge     in

W.P.No.21340 of 2005.

      The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on

01.11.1987 and he was removed from service on 30.06.1992

alleging cash and ticket irregularities. The respondent/writ

petitioner took shelter of the Labour Court and the Labour

Court in I.D.No.777 of 1993 on 13.11.1996 allowed the prayer

of the respondent/writ petitioner and directed his

reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits,

however without back wages. He was reinstated in the month

of February, 1997. However, he was not granted 12 years

stagnation increment and therefore, he submitted a

representation to the Corporation. The representation of the

respondent/writ petitioner was considered by the Corporation

and rejected by order dated 16.11.2001. The respondent/writ

petitioner, being aggrieved by the rejection of his

representation, came up before this court and the learned

Single Judge has allowed the writ petition directing the

present appellant/employer to grant him stagnation

increment.

The order of removal was challenged by the

respondent/writ petitioner and an award was passed by the

Labour Court on 13.11.1996. The award is on record and

paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the award read as under:-

8. POINT No.2: As per my finding above as the charge No.2 is not clearly established and the other charges are purely technical the punishment of removal is not proportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner.

9. IN THE RESULT the Award is passed (1) setting aside the order of removal passed against the petitioner (2) and directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with all attendant benefits but without back wages.

10. The Award shall be implemented within 50 days from the date of publication of the Award.

The aforesaid award makes it very clear that a direction

was issued to reinstate the respondent/writ petitioner into

service with continuity of service along with all benefits,

except back wages. The present appellant/employer did not

challenge the award passed by the Labour Court at any point

of time and therefore, once the respondent/writ petitioner

was reinstated into service with all consequential benefits, he

is certainly entitled for stagnation allowance which is granted

to all other employees after completion of 12 years of service.

The learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the

respondent/writ petitioner is entitled for grant of 12 years

stagnation increment.

This court does not find any reason to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge and the

respondent/writ petitioner is certainly entitled for grant of 12

years stagnation increment with all consequential benefits, in

the light of the order passed by the Labour Court, by virtue of

which he has been granted all consequential benefits.

Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 13.12.2021 JSU