IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21423 of 1999 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Depot Manager, Tandur Bus Depot, R.R.Dist. ... PETITIONER AND Sri Mohd Akber, C/o P.Ram Mohan Rao, 20/1, Vidhyanagar, Hyderabad-44. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in M.P.No.II of 1995 dt.16.2.99 on the file of the Hon'ble Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.21423 of 1999 Order: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, questioning the order dated 16-02-1999 passed by the Labour Court – III Hyderabad, in M.P.No.11 of 1995. 2. M.P.No.11 of 1995 is filed by the respondent herein under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming an amount of Rs.33,175/- from the petitioner- Corporation. Having served in the Corporation, the respondent retired from service on 31-05-1993 on attaining the age of superannuation. It was his case that as per the service conditions though he was eligible for encashment of 240 days of earned leave, he was allowed to encash only 54 days and deprived of encashment of 185 days, illegally. It was the defence of the petitioner-Corporation that as the respondent was placed under suspension from 09-09-1964 to 03-02-1965, while passing final orders in the disciplinary proceedings, this period was counted as leave, and, as such, he is not entitled to encash 240 days. The Labour Court, while appreciating the evidence on record, held that in absence of any order passed to that effect by the competent authority, the defence of the petitioner-Corporation cannot be accepted and, accordingly, by the order impugned allowed the M.P. and directed the petitioner-Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.33,102.75 ps. to the respondent on account of leave encashment for the remaining 185 days. 3. When the matter had come up on the earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation to produce a copy of the order, suspending the petitioner, if any. It is submitted by the learned counsel, on instructions, that no such order is available on record, but, however, the period from 09-09-1964 to 03-02-1965 was treated as ‘leave’ on loss of pay. 4. It is to be noted that even if the said period is treated as leave on loss of pay, that does not affect the claim of the petitioner for encashment of earned leave. As much as the respondent was undisputedly entitled for encashment of 240 days of earned leave and as he was allowed to encash only 54 days, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned passed by the Labour Court directing the petitioner-Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.33,102.75 ps. to the respondent on account of leave encashment for the remaining 185 days. 5. At this stage, it is submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner-Corporation has deposited the entire amount pursuant to the order of the Tribunal and the respondent was permitted to withdraw 1/4th of the said amount without furnishing any security and the remaining amount was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit. 6. As much as the order of the Labour Court is confirmed by this order, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire amount lying in the fixed deposit with interest accrued thereon without furnishing any security. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. August 22, 2008 MRR