HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.3801 of 2009 Date: June 2, 2010 Between: O.U. Khan, S/o. late Gulam Mohd. Khan, aged 59 years, Occ: Retd. Conductor, E.No.87853, R/o.Manakondur Post and village, Karimnagar District. … Petitioner And APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director-cum-Vice-Chairman, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and another … Respondents Order: The petitioner, a retired employee of the respondents- APSRTC, seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the order of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, passed in M.P.Nos.51 and 52 of 2000, dated 21-08-2001, as illegally and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the service of the respondents-Corporation in year 1980. When he was removed from service on 05-08-1981, he questioned the same by raising an industrial dispute, before the Labour Court, Warangal, which was transferred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, and numbered as I.D.No.20 of 1989. In the said I.D., award was passed on 10-07-1989, setting aside the order of removal and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with all attendant benefits, but without back- wages. The said award was published on 25-10-1989. On the ground that notional increments were not given and an amount of Rs.44,278.65 paise is due to him, the petitioner filed M.P.No.51 of 2000 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Inustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The Tribunal, by order dated 21-08-2001, disposed of the said petition directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner as on 10-07- 1989 as if he was in service, by giving notional increments without stopping increment for the year 1981. In the said order, further directions were given to the effect that the pay and allowances of the petitioner shall be shown month-wise while re-fixing his pay. Another application in M.P.No.52 of 2000, which is filed by the petitioner seeking similar relief, was also disposed of on the same lines. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondents did not fix his pay in terms of the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal in M.P.Nos.51 and 52 of 2000. 4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. While, generally, denying various allegations made by the petitioner, in para-8 of the counter affidavit, it is categorically stated that as per the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal in M.P.Nos.51 and 52 of 2001, revised pay fixation was made from 1980 to 2001 allowing notional increments and the award of the Labour Court is implemented in toto in the salary bill of January, 2002. It is further stated that as per the calculation sheet, an amount of Rs.45,725.20 paise was arrived at, in addition to the earlier payment of Rs.1,21,345.90 paise. It is stated that after deducting an amount of Rs.13,991/- towards provident fund, pay of the petitioner was duly fixed at appropriate stage, and the same was paid to him vide cheque bearing No.968962, dated 23-11-2001 deducting an amount of Rs.4,035/- towards provident fund. Thus, it is stated that fixation of the pay of the petitioner has been done in terms of the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal. 5. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner controverting the averments made in the counter affidavit. 6. However, when the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that fixation of the pay of the petitioner after the year 2002 has not been made properly. So far as the said aspect is concerned, it is not the subject matter of M.P.Nos.51 and 52 of 2000. If the petitioner is of the view that there is any discrepancy in fixing his pay after the year 2002, it is open to him to approach the competent authority by way of a representation, with supporting calculation sheet, but under the guise of implementation of the order of the Industrial Tribunal in M.P.Nos.51 and 52 of 2000, he cannot agitate that his pay has not been fixed properly after the year 2002. It is stated that the petitioner retired from service on 31-08-2007 and dues which were payable to him have already been paid. However, no objections were filed at that point of time, but now after retirement, he seeks implementation of the order of the Industrial Tribunal, which is stated to be already done by the respondents. For the said reasons, no relief as sought by the petitioner can be granted. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J June 2, 2010 N.B. Furnish C.C. in 3 days B.O. MRR