IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 34449 of 1998 Between: 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Zahirabad Depot, 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Narayankhed Depot. 3 The Divisional Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C., Medak Division, Sangareddy. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Md. Mansoor Ali, S/o Asgar Ali, C/o M. Mahadeva Sastry, H.No. 5-32, Durganagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court. II, A.P.Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:SMT B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for respondent No.1: MR P.Raghavendra Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 07-03-1998 passed by respondent No.2 in M.P.No.1 of 1993. Respondent No.1, a light vehicle driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, was placed under suspension on 16-06-1989, pending departmental proceedings. By order dated 04-10- 1990, respondent No.1 was removed from service. By an award passed by respondent No.2, and published on 28-02-1991, respondent No.1 was reinstated with continuity of service and all attendant benefits but without payment of back wages. On the same day, respondent No.1 approached the petitioners for his reinstatement. Respondent No.1 was, however, reinstated only on 26-12-1991 on collecting a fresh deposit of Rs.500/-. As respondent No.1 was denied re-fixation of proper basic, by taking into consideration the increments during the period of his being out of Office, subsistence allowance, full wages from 28-02-1991 to 26-12-1991 and ex gratia for the period from 1988-89 and 1989-90, he approached respondent No.2 by filing an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). Respondent No.2, by the impugned order, allowed the said application. Heard Smt B.G.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and perused the record. Respondent No.1, in his application, claimed the following reliefs: (i) Subsistence allowance from 16-06-1989 to 04-10-1990; (ii) refund of Rs.500/- which was collected as security deposit at the time of reinstatement; (iii) fixation of basic pay by including notional increments for the period when respondent No.1 was out of office and payment of difference of pay and (iv) payment of full wages from 28-02-1991 to 26-12-1991 including ex gratia, D.A. etc., Respondent No.2, after taking into consideration the respective pleadings and oral evidence adduced by both the parties, disposed of the application. In its order, respondent No.2 framed the following points. (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance from 16-06-1989 to 04-10-1990? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the refund of Rs.500/- which is deposited as security deposit at the time of reinstatement? (3) Whether the fixation of wages to the petitioner after his reinstatement is proper and whether the petitioner is entitled for difference of wages? (4) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the full wages from 28-02-1991 to 26-12-1991? (5) Whether the petitioner is entitled for ex gratia for the period 1988-89 and 1989-90 Under Point No.1, respondent No.2 has taken into consideration the admission made by the petitioners in their calculation memo filed along with the counter-affidavit that respondent No.1 is entitled to subsistence allowance of Rs.495/- for the period between 16-09-1990 and 04-10-1990 and on Point No.5, respondent No.2, on the basis of the admission made by the petitioners, held that respondent No.1 is entitled to ex gratia at the rate of Rs.1188.50 ps and Rs.672/- for the periods from 1988-89 and 1989-1990 respectively. On Point No.2, respondent No.2 held that in view of reinstatement of respondent No.1, which restores his original position, the petitioners were not justified in collecting a fresh deposit of Rs.500/- on the premise that the earlier deposit was forfeited. On Point Nos. 3 and 4, respondent No.2 held that with the reinstatement of respondent No.1 with continuity of service, respondent No.1 is entitled to all the attendant benefits including notional increments and accordingly, he directed fixation of respondent No.1’s basic pay by allowing the notional increments and payment of difference of wages. He also held that though respondent No.1 reported to duty on 28-02- 1991, he was taken on duty on 26-12-1991, after giving necessary relaxation regarding the height of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 held that the petitioners ought to have taken respondent No.1 into duty and referred his case for relaxation later. On this premise, respondent No.2 held that respondent No.1 is entitled to full wages from 28-02- 1991 to 26-12-1991. Having carefully considered the reasons given by respondent No.2, I am of the view that they do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. While the order on points 1 and 5 was based on the concession made by the petitioners in their counter, the decision on points 2 and 3 is made taking into consideration the award by which the removal of respondent No.1 was set aside and he was reinstated with continuity of service. Respondent No.2 held and in my view rightly that when once respondent No.1 is reinstated with continuity of service, he is restored to the same position, as he would have been in but for the order of removal. In view of the conditional reinstatement, namely; that he is entitled only to notional increments and not entitled to back wages, respondent No.1 will not be entitled to monetary benefits of increments made during the period when he was out of Office. But this would not deny respondent No.1 of the benefit of notional increments for the purpose of payment of salary after his reinstatement. Therefore, I do not find any legal or jurisdictional error in the finding of respondent No.2 on points 2 and 3. As regards the finding on Point No.4, the order of reinstatement comes into force immediately on publication of the award. Admittedly the award was published on 28-02-1991 and respondent No.1 was entitled for being taken into duty from that date onwards. Hence, there was no justification for denial of salary to respondent No.1 from that date till 26-12-1991 on the purported ground that the delay in taking respondent No.1 back into service occurred in obtaining relaxation in the height from the competent authority. Therefore, even on this point, I do not find any illegality in the finding of respondent No.2. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 19th November, 2008 vrn