THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.17415 of 2002 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein was at the relevant time driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in its Picket depot at Secunderabad. It is seen that the bus driven by him met with an accident in which a motor cyclist and his pillion rider were killed. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the order of the concerned depot manager on 24.02.1993 and after holding a departmental enquiry he was removed from service by the competent authority on 30.09.1993. Thereafter the petitioner raised an industrial dispute i.e. I.D.No.47/1994 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The said court by its award dated 18.08.1995 after considering that the corresponding criminal case filed against the petitioner ended in acquittal exonerated the petitioner from the charges of rash or negligent driving and also not informing the concerned authorities which were the two charges framed against him in the domestic enquiry and ordered his reinstatement into service with all back wages and attendant benefits. 3. The grievance of the petitioner now is that even though he was ordered to be reinstated into service with all back wages and attendant benefits, the APSRTC authorities have not considered the suspension period preceding order of removal for the purpose of continuity in service and increments and therefore having regard to the relief granted by the labour court the APSRTC authorities should be directed to consider the suspension period as ‘duty’ for all purposes. The petitioner is claiming this relief by way of a mandamus or any other appropriate order. The suspension period is stated to be from 24.02.1993 to 30.09.1993. 4. The plea of the respondents is that since there is no direction in the labour court award as to how the suspension period should be dealt with and further as per Note 3 of the Regulation No.11(3) of the APSRTC Employees (Pay and Allowances) Regulations, 1964, the suspension period cannot be counted for the purpose of increment and therefore they are justified in refusing the relief claimed by the petitioner now. 5. It may be noted that a perusal of the award would show that the labour court discussed all the aspects relating to the charges and found that the removal order cannot be sustained following the acquittal in the criminal court and in that view of the matter it directed reinstatement of the petitioner and granted him all the reliefs. In view of this it follows that the suspension period has also to be treated as duty as suspension was ordered only as a step towards domestic enquiry and penalty of removal which was ultimately set aside by the labour court. In these circumstances it follows that by virtue of the award the labour court must be held to have ordered that suspension period should also be treated as ‘duty’. 6. Sri K. Madhava Reddy pointed out that the labour court award is dated 18.08.1995 but the petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2002 and therefore there is a delay and consequently the monetary benefit should be denied to him. It is difficult to accept this contention. It may be noted that though the labour court award is of 1995 and this writ petition is of 2002, the effect of the labour court award would be that suspension period has also to be treated as ‘duty’ period when reinstatement was ordered. The respondents have ignored this aspect and therefore their present contention cannot be accepted based on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition as the APSRTC authorities have denied this relief which ought to have been granted as per the award of labour court. Accordingly that plea of the respondents is rejected. 7. For these reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as ‘duty’ for all purposes including any monetary relief and grant the necessary wages for that period including increments. No costs. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 11th August 2011 CVRK