HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 12504 OF 2004 DATED 06TH NOVEMBER, 2009. BETWEEN The General Manager/Managing Director), APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. …Petitioner and The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, rep. By its Presiding Officer, anr. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 12504 OF 2004 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, ‘the APSRTC’), the respondent in I.D.No.67 of 2001 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, is before this Court, aggrieved by the Award dated 17.09.2003 passed therein. The said Industrial Dispute arose on a reference made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’). The issue referred for consideration was: “Whether the action of the General Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad in appointing Sri V.Ramachandrudu, Conductor E.54164 as a fresh conductor forfeiting the past service is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?” Upon considering the material on record, the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was inordinate delay of twenty years on the part of the respondent-workman in raising the dispute. Taking the same into account, the Industrial Tribunal applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing-cum-Processing Services Society Limited[1] and denied the respondent-workman the monetary benefit for the period prior to the date of raising the dispute. Thereby, the respondent-workman was given the benefit of three years service between 1975 and 1978 for the purpose of notional continuity of service but he was deprived of the monetary benefit which flowed from such continuity of service till 21.12.1997. It is relevant to note that 21.12.1997 was the date on which the respondent-workman raised the dispute. Smt. W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, contended that as there was inordinate delay on the part of the respondent-workman in raising the dispute, the Industrial Tribunal ought not to have awarded continuity of service even for notional purposes. The respondent-workman was initially appointed as a conductor in the year 1975 and his services were terminated in the year 1977. The appeal filed by him was rejected in the year 1977 and on review, he was appointed afresh as a conductor in the year 1978. Therefore, the continuity of service for notional purpose only covers the period of three years between 1975 and 1978. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh, even in a case involving delay, it is for the Tribunal/Labour Court to grant appropriate relief by denying back wages. In the present case, the Labour Court, in exercise of its discretion in this regard, denied the respondent the monetary benefit upto to the date of his raising the dispute, even though such continuity of service is to be taken into consideration notionally for service benefits. I see no irregularity in the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of its discretion. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------------- JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DATED 06TH NOVEMBER, 2009. Msnr. [1] AIR 1999 SC 1351