HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1759 of 2004 O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.), the respondent in W.P.No.17378 of 2004, filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the said writ petition and directing it to extend the benefit of notional increments to the respondent-workman herein from the date of his removal till the date of his reinstatement, ie. 21.04.1997 to 04.01.2001. The A.P.S.R.T.C. was further directed to fix the pay of the respondent-workman on the basis of these notional increments for the period subsequent to the date of his reinstatement. The order under appeal was suspended by this Court by interim order dated 07.12.2009. The respondent-workman, a Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C., was removed from service under proceedings dated 21.04.1997. Aggrieved thereby, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.166 of 1998 before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. By Award dated 19.06.2001, the Labour Court set aside the order of removal passed against the respondent-workman and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. The respondent-workman filed the subject Writ Petition before this Court assailing the action of the A.P.S.R.T.C. in not paying him salary by computing notional increments from the date of his termination from service till the date of his reinstatement and seeking a consequential direction to do so. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that as the Labour Court had granted the benefit of continuity of service to the workmen he would be entitled to notional increments from the date of his removal from service till his date of reinstatement. The learned Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition. In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ANOTHER v S.NARASA GOUD[1] is concerned, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the said judgment had no application on facts as that case dealt with an instance of unauthorised absence and not misconduct based on cash and ticket irregularities. Sri Anand Shinde, learned counsel representing Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C., contended that the learned Judge erred in appreciating and applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.Narasa Goud1. Learned counsel drew our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in this regard in para 9 of the judgment, which are as under: “There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence.” This being the ratio decidendi in S.Narasa Goud1, we are in agreement with the learned counsel that the learned Judge was not correct in not applying the same to the case on hand on the ground that the facts were different. The entitlement of the respondent-workman to notional benefits would have arisen only if the Labour Court specifically granted the relief of attendant benefits. The mere relief of continuity of service without anything further did not spell out such entitlement. The respondent-workman was therefore not entitled to seek extension of notional benefits for the period that he remained out of service. The order of the learned Judge holding to the contrary is accordingly set aside. The Writ Appeal is allowed but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________​_ SANJAY KUMAR, J 28th September, 2011. PNV [1] (2003) 2 SCC 212