IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5629 of 2009 Between: Md. Mahamood Ali, S/o. Md. Jahangir, O/o. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Shadnagar Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar, A.P., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Managar, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar Region, at Mahaboobnagar, A.P., 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Shadnagar Bus Depot, Mahaboobnagar, A.P., .....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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not paying the terminal benefits (i.e. difference of gratuity) for the period date of initial appointment to the date of removal, (i.e., from 12.04.1972 to 13.11.1979) at the end of his service is as illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the award of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in I.D.No.35 of 1992, and consequently direct the respondents to pay the terminal benefits for the said period as per the award. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 12.4.1972. Disciplinary proceedings came to be issued against him on the charge of cash and ticket irregularities. On full pledged enquiry, the respondents-Corporation removed him from service on 13.11.1979. After exhausting all the departmental remedies, the petitioner challenged the order of removal by raising an industrial dispute before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabd. The Labour Court-III entertained the dispute as I.D.No.35 of 1992 (old I.D.No.242/87). The ID came to be disposed of by the labour Court on 12.11.1993 directing the respondents-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh Conductor. However, the respondents have been directed to count the past service of the petitioner for the purpose of payment of terminal benefits at the end of service. The petitioner retired from service on 31.8.2008. Since the respondents have not considered his past service for the purpose of payment of terminal benefits, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation takes notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The relevant portion of the order passed by the labour Court reads as hereunder: “In the result, the award is passed setting aside the removal order dated 13.11.1979 by modify the punishment directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service by fixing his pay of a newly appointed conductor. His past services by conduct is to be counted for the purpose of payments of terminal benefits at the end of service. For the interregnum period the petitioner is not at all entitled for any benefits. Reinstatement shall be done forthwith on publication of the award.” A plain reading of the award indicates that the past service of the petitioner is to be counted for the purpose of granting terminal benefits. Such is the situation, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondents to count the past service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of granting terminal benefits as directed by the labour Court. __________ 19-03-2009 rkk