IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5669 of 1999 Between: 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 3 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Armoor, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad. 2 N. Mohan Reddy, C/o B.N. Rajayya, Advocate, 776-4th Street, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. .....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, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records from the 1st Respondent in M.P.No.15 of 1997 dt: 7-9-1998 on the file of the Hon'ble Labour Court-II, Hyderabad i.e. 1st Respondent herein and quash the order and pass such other or further order or orders, as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : Smt.B.G.UMA DEVI. Counsel for the Respondents : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5669 of 1999 ORDER : This writ petition is filed by APSRTC through its Depot Managers of Kamareddy, Bodhan and Armoor, questioning the order dated 07.09.1998, passed by Labour Court-II, Hyderabad in M.P.No.15 of 1997, filed by respondent No.2 under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 2. The 2nd respondent was originally appointed as Conductor in the petitioners-Corporation on 27.09.1972. But, however, enquiry proceedings were initiated against him on charges of misconduct and thereafter, he was removed from service, by an order dated 03.12.1973. Respondent No.2 has questioned the same by raising an industrial dispute in I.D.No.167 of 1992 before Labour Court-II-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal, by an Award dated 08.02.1993, ordered for reinstatement of respondent No.2 into service without breakage of service and without back wages, but with stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect from the date of reinstatement. 3. In terms of the Award passed by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent was reinstated into service with effect from 17.06.1993 and his pay was fixed as per his entitlement. But, however, on the ground that the said fixation of pay in the post in which he was reinstated and in his further promoted posts was not correctly done, he filed M.P.No.15 of 1997 under Section 33 (c) (2) of the ID Act, seeking directions for payment of a sum of Rs.21,960/- for the period from 17.06.1993 to 13.09.1994 from petitioner No.1, for payment of Rs.11,950/- for the period from 01.10.1994 to 31.10.1996 from petitioner No.2 and for payment of Rs.9,115/- for the period from 01.02.1996 to 31.03.1997 from petitioner No.3. The said application was contested by the petitioners herein mainly on the ground that the pay of respondent No.2 was correctly fixed without extending the monetary benefit of increments, as the Tribunal did not grant any relief to that effect. But, however, the Tribunal rejected the said defence put-forth by the petitioners herein and allowed the application through the impugned order dated 07.09.1998, observing that since the 2nd respondent was given the benefit of continuity of service, he is entitled for increments while fixing his pay pursuant to the order of reinstatement passed in I.D.No.167 of 1992. Accordingly, petitioners 1 to 3 herein were directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,960/-, Rs.11,950/- and Rs.9,115/- respectively, to the 2nd respondent, within a period of three months from the date of the said order. 4. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners-Corporation that while passing the Award in I.D.No.167 of 1992, the Tribunal has merely ordered for reinstatement of 2nd respondent into service with continuity of service, but no specific relief was given with regard to payment of increments, and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of increments while fixing his pay. In support of this argument, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K.Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.Agarwal[1]. 5. Though a notice was served on respondent No.2, there is no representation on his behalf. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. When respondent No.2 has filed I.D.No.167 of 1992 questioning the order of his removal, through its Award dated 08.02.1993, the Tribunal has ordered for his reinstatement without breakage of service and without back wages, but ordered for stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect from the date of his reinstatement. The subsequent application in M.P.No.15 of 1997 filed under Section 33 (c) (2) of the ID Act, seeking directions for payment of a sum of Rs.21,960/-, Rs.11,950/- and Rs.9,115/- from petitioners 1 to 3 herein respectively, was allowed only on the ground that since the 2nd respondent was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service, he is entitled to increments while fixing his pay in the post in which he was reinstated and also in his further promoted posts. 7. In the judgment referred above, the Apex Court was considering the benefit of continuity of service and it was held that where continuity of service is ordered, it should be only for the purpose of pensionary and retirement benefits, but not for any other benefits like increments, promotions, etc. Further, in the case of APSRTC v. S.Narsagoud[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the difference between an order of reinstatement with a simple direction for continuity of service, and an order of reinstatement with a direction for payment of consequential benefits, and it is held that only where there is an order for reinstatement with consequential benefits, the employee is entitled to increments, but not otherwise. 8. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two cases, as there was no specific direction given by the Tribunal in the present case in I.D.No.167 of 1992 for any consequential benefits or for payment of any increments during the period of absence, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners-Corporation merits acceptance, and therefore, the order impugned is to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The impugned order dated 07.09.1998 passed in M.P.No.15 of 1997 by Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, is set aside. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th June 2008. pv/ajr To The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad. [1] (2007) 2 SCC 433 [2] (2003) 2 SCC 212