IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT APPEL No.1765 of 2001 Between: P. Ramulu … Appellant And: Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep., by its General Manager (Project), Bellampally, Adilabad District & another. …Respondents. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri E.V.S. Suresh Kumar for Sri K. Srinivas Murthy This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1765 of 2001 JUDGMENT:- (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Feeling partly aggrieved by order dated 03.09.2001 in WP.No.3556 of 2000, the writ petitioner filed this writ appeal. The appellant, who was a driver in the respondents organization, was dismissed by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”) by order dated 28.11.1983 when an industrial dispute was pending. Therefore, an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”) was filed by the Management. The said application was dismissed by the Labour Court by order dated 04.12.1986. As the Management has not reinstated the appellant, he was constrained to file WP.No.12096 of 1987 in this Court. The Management filed WP.No.4058 of 1990 questioning order dated 04.12.1986 of the Labour Court, dismissing its application for granting approval of the order of dismissal of the appellant. During the pendency of both the said writ petitions, the Management reinstated the appellant in to service on 10.03.1990. By common order dated 20.02.1997, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed WP.No.4058 of 1990 filed by the Management and disposed of WP.No.12096 of 1987 filed by the appellant with the observation that the appellant is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service, but, without backwages. In the year 2000, the appellant filed WP.No.3556 of 2000 for a Mandamus to declare the action of the Management in not granting increments, grades and other consequential benefits for the period from the date of his dismissal to the date of filing the writ petition, as illegal. He also sought for a consequential direction to the Management to fix his salary in the appropriate scale and grade with all consequential benefits including the arrears and salary for the period from 04.12.1986 to 10.03.1990. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition by following a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Managing Director, APSRTC vs. M. Sankaraiah[1], wherein it was held that where the Labour Court directs reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service but without back wages and other attendant benefits, the workman is entitled to the benefit of notional increments for the period during which he was out of service and adding of these increments in fixing his salary on reinstatement without claim for arrears. The learned Judge directed that the Management shall fix the salary of the appellant by granting notional increments for the period during which he was out of service. The appellant filed the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the denial of some of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. At the hearing, Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that though the Labour Court dismissed the Management’s application filed under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act by its order dated 04.12.1986, the appellant was reinstated only on 10.03.1990 and that therefore there was no justification in the Management denying salary to the appellant from 04.12.1986 to 10.03.1990. The learned counsel further submitted that the Management has not properly fixed the pay scale and the grade which the appellant is entitled to. As regards the claim for salary for the period from 04.12.1986 to 10.03.1990, in our considered opinion, the appellant is not entitled to the said relief for two reasons, namely; that the cause of action for the appellant to claim such relief has commenced in the year 1990 when WP.No.12096 of 1987, filed by him for his reinstatement with all other benefits, was pending in this Court. It is noteworthy that the said writ petition was disposed of only on 20.02.1997. Therefore, the appellant ought to have claimed this relief in the said writ petition. Even assuming that the said claim constituted an independent dispute, the appellant has not approached this Court at least for a period of ten years after the accrual of cause of action. The appellant filed WP.No.3556 of 2000 only in the year 2000 for payment of salary up to 10.03.1990. The appellant has not explained the reasons for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court for the said relief. Since the claim of the appellant is belated and he has failed to agitate this claim at an appropriate time more so when his previous writ petition was pending in this Court, we are not inclined to grant any relief in this regard to the appellant. With regard to the fixation of pay scale, the learned Single Judge has given a categorical direction in the order under appeal that the Management shall fix the salary of the appellant by granting notional increments for the period during which he was out of service. This direction, therefore, presupposes that the Management should fix the pay scale of the appellant by taking into consideration the notional increments. Insofar as the fixation of grade is concerned, the grievance of the appellant appears to be that some of his juniors were promoted and he has not been given such a benefit. Though the learned counsel for the appellant, at the hearing, claimed that the appellant made several representations, neither a reference has been made to any of those representations nor a copy thereof has been filed by the appellant. If the appellant has a legitimate grievance with regard to the fixation of grade, he shall first approach the Management and in the event of the Management not granting the relief, then he can seek redressal of his grievance by availing appropriate relief. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.10.2009 ES [1] 1999 (4) ALT 89 (DB)