THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2299 of 2005 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-workman as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-A.P.State Road Transport Corporation. 2. This writ petition is directed against the Award passed by the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.D.No.105 of 1999, dated 22.4.2002, insofar as imposing the further punishment of deferment of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect, while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner afresh. 3. The petitioner, while working as Driver in the 2nd respondent Corporation, caused an accident. He was issued a charge sheet and after completion of formalities he was removed from service. However, on filing a claim petition under Section 2(A)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D.No.105 of 1999 before the Labour Court, the removal order was set aside and the Labour Court ordered for appointment of the petitioner afresh and further directed the 2nd respondent Corporation to impose the punishment of deferment of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The portion of the said order where the 2nd respondent Corporation was directed to impose the punishment of deferment of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect after being appointed afresh is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was directed to be appointed afresh, therefore, the question of imposing further punishment of deferment of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect after being appointed afresh does not arise. This causes hardship to the petitioner, who was appointed in the year 1988 and who was denied the entire service from 1998 to till the date of reinstatement and no backwages etc., were paid to him. 5. I am of the considered opinion that, generally speaking, the Labour Court may impose any condition while ordering reinstatement without backwages etc. But, in a case where fresh appointment is ordered, generally the further punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect cannot be said to be reasonable. 6. Under those circumstances, the impugned Award dated 22.4.2002 insofar as directing the 2nd respondent Corporation to impose the punishment of deferment of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect after being appointed afresh is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 7. The 2nd respondent Corporation is directed to restore the increments, which were already stopped for a period of five years with cumulative effect, notionally till the date of disposal of this writ petition and the petitioner is entitled for monetary benefits only from 01.07.2010 onwards. 8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 04.06.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2299 of 2005 04.06.2010 (Msr)