IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9378 of 1999 Between: M/s. Ideal Engineers Hyderabad Limited, B-14, Co-operative Industrial Estate, Balanagar, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Director Mr.P.V.Subba Rao, S/o P.Sambasiva Rao, aged 64 Years, R/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer/Judge, The Additional Industrial Tribunal Cum Additional Labour Court, Chandravihar, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Mr.Abdul Hameed, S/o Sri.Sattar, R/o H.NO.2649, Venkatramreddy Nagar, Hyderabad- 506 854 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in M.P.No.30 of 1997 dt:24-3-1999 by the Learned First Respondent and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The second respondent herein had earlier approached the Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.447 of 1993, by way of an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). It would suffice for the purpose of this case, if the relief granted by the Labour Court is taken note of. “Point No.3: This is not the case where there is any termination of service or even willful absentseem on the part of the petitioner as the facts disclosed. Therefore, the following ‘Award’ is passed: 1. The respondent is directed to admit the petitioner into the job as per the transfer orders issued earlier to the same post immediately, 2. The petitioner is directed to send the joining report immediately to the respondent under the Regd. Post Ack. Due and also report directly to the concerned General Manager in person and take the orders and report to the duty at the concerned unit. 3. The services of the petitioner will count from the date of his joining with earlier respondent for all benefits including seniority and increments as per the contract between the parties. 4. No back-wages.” Claiming payment of increment for the period from December, 1992 to October, 1997, the second respondent filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act and the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, by order in M.P.No.30 of 1997 dated 24.03.1999, allowed the claim of the second respondent for payment of increments and directed that a sum of Rs.17,500/- be paid. While the petitioner was undoubtedly entitled for payment of increments after the award, dated 21.12.1996, the question which arises for consideration is whether he is entitled for payment of increments from December, 1992 till the date of the award. It is well to remember that proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings and it is only if the workman has a vested right to receive the amount claimed, or the amount claimed is pursuant to an award or settlement, would an application, under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act, be maintainable. In the present case, the claim is based on the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.447 of 1993, dated 21.12.1996. As noted above, the Labour Court, in the aforesaid award, specifically denied back wages to the second respondent. It further held that the services of the second respondent would count from the date of his joining with the earlier respondent for all benefits including seniority and increments. It is, no doubt, true that the award required the services of the second respondent to be reckoned from the date of his joining with the earlier respondent i.e. from December, 1992 onwards. However, the Labour Court has specifically denied back wages. When both the reliefs granted are read together, it can only mean that, while the service rendered from December, 1992 onwards is to be treated as continuous for the purposes of seniority and increments, the second respondent shall not be entitled for any back wages for the period from December, 1992 till the date of the award on 21.12.1996, whether it be towards salary or increments and that the petitioner herein is required to extend the benefit of notional increments to the second respondent till the date of the award and pay him the enhanced salary from the date of the award i.e. 21.12.1996. Since the Labour Court granted the second respondent increments for the period from December, 1992 to October, 1997, the order to the limited extent it directed payment of increments prior to 31.12.1996 is set aside. It is represented by Sri M.Radhakrishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had already paid 50% of the said amount as ordered by the Labour Court and that the second respondent has already withdrawn the said amount. While modifying the impugned order of the Labour Court, to the extent indicated above, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not take any steps to recover the amount, if any, paid to the second respondent pursuant to the interim orders of this Court. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 27th FEBRUARY, 2008. kvni ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Presiding Officer/Judge, The Additional Industrial Tribunal Cum Additional Labour Court, Chandravihar, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. 2CD copies