IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20330 of 2006 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rajenderanagar, Depot, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mohd. BVashu , E.No. 41955, Controller, H.No. 16-6-427/1. 2 Labour Court-I, A.P. Hyderabad Rep. by its Presiding Officer. .....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 an appropriate writ, order and direction especially are in the nature of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order dt. 2-12-2005 made in M.P.No. 56/2002 Court of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, A.P. Hyderabad directing the petitioner herein to re-fix the pay of the 1st respondent by adding notional increments and pay all the difference of amount, and quash the same as being illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled pre positions of law, and pass such other and further orders to meet the ends of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.T.M.Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Labour The Court made the following ORDER: The first respondent is employed as a Conductor in Rajendernagar Deport of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was removed from service vide order, dated 08.08.1989, as a measure of punishment. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent filed I.D.No.312 of 1993 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Through its award, dated 08.11.1994, the Labour Court had set aide the order of removal and directed the reinstatement of the first respondent with continuity of service, but without the benefit of back wages or attendant benefits. Accordingly, the first respondent was reinstated into service. The first respondent filed M.P.No.56 of 2002 under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, complaining that he was not extended the benefit of arrears of salary etcetera. Through its order, dated 02.12.2005, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to re-fix the pay of the first respondent by allowing notional increments and to extend difference of pay. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The award is clear in its purport that though the first respondent was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, he was denied the benefit of back wages as well as notional increments and attendant benefits. Once the attendant benefits are denied to the first respondent, he is not entitled to the notional increments for the period during which he was out of service. I n ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. ABDUL KAREEM[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that wherever the attendant benefits are denied to an employee, he would not be entitled to claim notional increments. Following the same, the writ petition is allowed and the order, which is under challenge, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] (2005) 6 SCC 36