IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21395 of 1999 Between: M. Masna, S/o. Ullaji, R/o. 6-12-52, Namdevwada, Nizamabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Industrial Tribunal-II, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Chandravihar Building, 2nd Floor, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the 1st Respondent and issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the order passed in E.P.No. 2/98 in I.D. No. 92/1994 dated 16/07/1999 and grant all consequential benefits by allowing this Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: G.P., Labour Counsel for Respondent No.2: Smt. B.G. Umadevi The Court made the following: Order: This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 16-07- 1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal II, A.P., Hyderabad, in E.P.No.2 of 1998 in I.D.No.92 of 1994. 2. The petitioner herein was working as Checker on a private bus service plying between Nizamabd-Tadpakl. In view of nationalization of the said route, the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation notified a scheme to absorb the staff working on such private buses. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was considered and he was appointed as Booking Clerk in the respondent-corporation on 20-11-1975. On the ground that he was working as Checker on the aforesaid private bus, which is a higher post to that of Booking Clerk, he raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The said reference was on the following issue: “Whether the Regional Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, Nizamabad is justified in demanding the promotion of Sri Masna, Booking Clerk as Ticket Checking Inspector and also eligible to draw the differential allowances between Booking Clerk post and Conductor post?” 3. On such reference, the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, by award dated 09-09-1996 has held that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion to the post of Ticket Checking Inspector and is also not eligible to draw the differential allowance. However, the Tribunal incidentally observed that the petitioner be extended the benefit of the circular dated 01-04-1961, issued in letter No.E5/46/59. In the said circular, certain guidelines were issued for fixation of seniority. As per the circular, while preparing the seniority list, it should be kept in view that an employee who has rendered service in a higher category with the private operator will get the benefit of such service in the lower post in which he is absorbed in the service of the Corporation. The claim of the petitioner for extending the benefit of the said circular, on the ground that the post of Checker is a higher post to that of Booking Clerk, was considered by the Regional Manager of the Corporation and order dated 18-08-1997 was passed stating that the post of Checker is not in existence in the corporation, and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit as per the circular dated 01- 04-1961. In spite of the same, based on the observations made by the Tribunal in I.D.No.92 of 1994, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11-B of the Act in E.P.No.2 of 1998. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the said application. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the post of Checker is a higher post to that of Booking Clerk and therefore the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of service rendered in the post of Checker on the private bus service for fixation of his seniority in the cadre of Booking Clerk, i.e. the post in which he was appointed in the Corporation. 5. With reference to the aforesaid submission, it is to be noted that though the reference was totally on a different issue, the Tribunal in its award dated 09-09-1996, incidentally observed that the petitioner be given the benefit of circular dated 01-04-1961. It is to be noted that the said circular instructions have to be applied only in case the employee was working in a higher post before his absorption in the Corporation. When it is the case of the Corporation that there is no such post as Checker in its staffing pattern, the post of Checker cannot be treated as a higher post for extending the benefit of seniority. In any event, as much as the award of the Tribunal merely says that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the circular dated 01-04-1961, in absence of any specific relief granted to the petitioner, he cannot claim that the service rendered by him on the private bus should be taken into consideration, more particularly in view of the order dated 18-08- 1997 passed by the Regional Manager, wherein it is categorically stated that the post of Checker is not a higher post, so as to take the past service of the petitioner into consideration. Hence, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. January 19, 2009 MRR