IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18696 of 1999 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.K.Murthy S/o. Sri Laxminarayana, R/o. H.No. 16.6.427/1, Osmanpura, Hyderabad. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, A.P. Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 call issue for the records in Mp.No.34/96 dt.20.10.1996 on the ﬁle of the Labour Court.I, A.P., Hyderabad and quash the same in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Syed Ahmed Ali Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18696 of 1999 ORAL ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”) aggrieved by the order, dated 20-10-1998, in Miscellaneous Petition No.34 of 1996, passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Labour Court”). 2. Miscellaneous Petition No.34 of 1996 was ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming an amount of Rs.4,315/-. By the impugned order, dated 20-10-1998, the Labour Court has allowed the said petition directing the Corporation to pay the amount, which was due on account of stagnation increment of A-Grade. 3. The ﬁrst respondent has joined the service of the Corporation as Conductor, Grade-II, in the year 1978. He was removed from service with eﬀect from 27-05-1982, on the alleged proven misconduct. The said order of removal was challenged before the Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.40 of 1984. The Labour Court, Warangal, while setting aside the order of removal, directed for reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent into service forthwith, with continuity of service and all other attendant beneﬁts. On the ground that, after reinstatement, though he has completed 12 years of service, he was not given the beneﬁt of stagnation increment of A-Grade, the ﬁrst respondent has ﬁled the above said Miscellaneous Petition claiming arrears on account of such stagnation increment. The Labour Court has allowed the Miscellaneous Petition mainly on the ground that when the Labour Court, Warangal, has ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service and all other attendant beneﬁts, there is no reason for not extending the benefit of such stagnation increment. 4. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that there was a circular issued by the Corporation, by virtue of which, for the purpose of extending the stagnation increment, one has to complete 12 years of active service. Therefore, though the ﬁrst respondent was reinstated into service, as he has not completed 12 years of active service, the beneﬁt of such stagnation increment was not extended to him. 5. It is not in dispute that the Award of the Labour Court, Warangal, in I.D.No.40 of 1984 has become ﬁnal. In the said Award, the Labour Court, Warangal, while ordering reinstatement of the ﬁrst respondent into service, has categorically held that he is entitled for continuity of service and all other attendant beneﬁts. Therefore, in view of the relief granted by the Labour Court, Warangal, in clear terms to extend all other attendant beneﬁts, there is no reason to restrict such direction only for the ordinary increments, but not for stagnation increment of A-Grade. 6. When the Award passed in I.D.No.40 of 1984 has become ﬁnal, it is not open for the Corporation to plead that the ﬁrst respondent is not entitled for the stagnation increment of A-Grade by taking into consideration the period for which he was out of service. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as having no merits. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19-11-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18696 of 1999 19-11-2008 Msr