THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1891 of 2005 Date: 14.02.2011 Between: The Management of APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. … Petitioners And The Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Presiding Officer and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1891 of 2005 ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-A.P State Road Transport Corporation against the Award made in I.D.No.78 of 2001, dated 08.07.2004, on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, whereunder the application filed by the 2nd respondent-workman under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking to set aside the termination order dated 15.09.1998 passed by the petitioner- Corporation and to direct the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the 2nd respondent-workmen into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits, was partly allowed holding as under: “In the result, the award is passed by setting aside the removal order dt.15.9.98. Respondent shall reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages. After reinstatement in terms of the award, one increment shall be stopped with cumulative effect. Petitioner is not entitled for attendant benefits. Period of suspension shall not be counted for any purpose. The award shall be implemented within one month from the date of its publication U/s.17 of I.D. Act.” 2. A reading of the above order would indicate that the 2nd respondent-workman was also granted back wages, though attendant benefits were denied. 3. There is some ambiguity in the said order. The petitioner- Corporation seems to have misunderstood the words used with continuity of service and back wages, which were again explained that the workman is not entitled for attendant benefits and the period of suspension shall not be counted for any purpose. A cumulative reading of the award passed by the Labour Court, as noticed above, would indicate that the 2nd respondent-workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages and attendant benefits. Further, the period of suspension shall be treated as not on duty and further the workman shall be imposed with a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 4. Therefore, there is no necessity to go into the details and it is suffice to modify the said order as under: “In the result, the award is passed by setting aside the removal order dated 15.9.1998. Respondent (petitioner-Corporation) shall reinstate the petitioner (2nd respondent-workman) with continuity of service, but without any back wages and attendant benefits. The period of suspension shall not be counted for any purpose. Further, the respondent (petitioner-Corporation) shall impose the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.” 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 14.02.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1891 of 2005 14.02.2011 (Msr)