IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14656 of 1999 Between: APSRTC, Rep. by Depot Manager Hyderabad-II Depot, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad 2 P. Sambaiah S/o Narayana C/o Sri G. Vidyasagar, 719, Venkateswara Temple Lane, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad-20 .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records from the 1st respondent in M.P.No.35 of 1997 dt: 14-9-1998 and quash the Award and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: The order of the Presiding Oﬃcer, Labour Court-I, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad, dated 14.09.1998 in M.P.No.35/97, a Petition ﬁled under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. The Respondent in the said M.P-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is the Writ Petitioner, while the workman, P.Sambaiah who is the Petitioner in the M.P. is arrayed as Respondent No.2 in the present Writ Petition. The said Petition was ﬁled by the second Respondent herein, claiming a sum of Rs.35,060-40 ps., towards Earned Leave on the basis of the following facts and circumstances: The second Respondent claimed to have joined the Petitioner Organization as Conductor on 30.08.1963 and was removed from service on 15.01.1969. He stated that he was reinstated into service on consideration of his mercy petition on 30.04.1970. There after, he was again removed from service with eﬀect from 23.08.1973 and aggrieved thereby, he approached the Labour Court by way of I.D.No.115/76. In pursuance of the Award dated 14.01.1979 passed by the Labour Court in the said I.D., directing his reinstatement into service with continuity of service and all other attendant beneﬁts, he was taken back into service on 07.04.1979. According to the second Respondent, the period that he was out of service, i.e., from 23.08.1973 to 07.04.1979 ought to have been taken into reckoning for calculating encashment of his earned leave. His grievance before the Labour Court in M.P.No.35/97 was that the Petitioner Organization had excluded the said period for calculating the actual days of his functioning thereby reducing his earned leave encashment. The Labour Court, taking into account the fact that the Award speciﬁcally directed that the second Respondent was entitled to continuity of service and attendant beneﬁts, held that he must be deemed to be in service from 23.08.1973 till 07.04.1979 and that this period must also be taken into reckoning for calculating the earned leave encashment. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner Organization approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. I have heard Sri Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Organization. It is noticed that though the second Respondent in the Writ Petition has been duly served, he has not put in an appearance before this Court in person or through an Advocate. It is no doubt true that the Labour Court, while directing reinstatement of the second Respondent in I.D.No.115/76, held that he was entitled to continuity of service along with attendant beneﬁts. The issue, however, is whether the continuity of service granted to the second Respondent would have the impact of treating the second Respondent as being on duty for all purposes. The argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the Writ Petitioner is that such continuity of service would entitle the second Respondent to payment of increments, seniority, promotion, etc., but would not entitle him to claim earned leave during the period he was out of service. The attention of this Court has been drawn to Regulation-7 of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Leave) Regulations, which deals with Earning of Leave. According to this Regulation, leave shall be earned by duty only. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 28.07.2005 in W.A.No.1195 of 2005, wherein, in similar circumstances, this Court held that the period that the workman was out of service cannot be given any credit for the purpose of reckoning earned leave. In the light of the above legal position and the judgment of this Court, I have no hesitation to hold that the Labour Court erred in directing that the period during which, the second Respondent was out of service should be taken into reckoning for the purpose of earned leave encashment. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and the Order under challenge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR J., Dt.14.08.2008 tjs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad 2.2CD copies