THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 34515 OF 1998 DATE: 30-1-2008 BETWEEN: D.V.N.Murthy ….. Petitioner And 1. APSRTC rep. By its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad and 2 others … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 34515 OF 1998 ORDER: In this writ petition the action of the respondents in fixing the seniority of the petitioner at Sl.No.540 in the category of conductors taking his date of appointment as 10.1.1974 is under challenge. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that, while he was denied promotion, Sri B.Chandra Sena, Sri Md Jahangir and Sri B.Narasimha, who were juniors to him were promoted as Controllers. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor on regular basis on 10.4.1974. Pursuant to the charge memo dated 5.3.1984, an enquiry was held and the petitioner was imposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 7.7.1984. The appeal thereagainst resulted in confirmation of the orders of punishment. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Addl. Industrial Tribunal cum Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.176 of 1993 and the Addl. Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 16.8.1993 held: “…….In the result the Award is passed setting aside the order of removal of the petitioner from service and n its place directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner without any back wages but with continuity of service with attendant benefits for terminal benefits and yearly increments only and not for other benefits. Further the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner within one month from the date of publication of this award on petitioner reporting for duty in writing…..” Thereafter, the Regional Manager (2nd respondent) passed the impugned order dated 1.6.1998. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order ignoring his service from 10.4.1974 till the order of removal dated 7.7.1984 i.e, a period exceeding 10 years in fixing his seniority. The petitioner filed W.P.No.4796 of 1998 and this court directed the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in this regard. Pursuant thereto the impugned order dated 1.6.1998 was passed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent noted that the petitioner was reinstated into service on 10.1.1994 without back wages and without continuity of service with attendant benefits for terminal benefits and increments only and not for other benefits, that promotional avenues come under the purview of other benefits and hence the date of reinstatement dated 10.1.1994 could only be taken into account for the purpose of promotion to the post of ADC/Controller. The 2nd respondent observed that the petitioner, who was placed at Sl.No.540 in provisional seniority list of conductors as on 1.4.1994 based on his date of appointment as 10.4.1974, had now been placed at Rank No.5128-A in view of his reinstatement without continuity of service from 10.1.1994. According to the 2nd respondent conductors appointed in Hyderabad City Region, on or after 7.1.1994, have not come under the zone of consideration for promotion as ADC/Controller. The petitioner was informed that he was not considered for promotion retrospectively from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 10.4.1974 and that he would be considered for promotion according to his turn duly taking into consideration the date of reinstatement i.e, 10.1.1994. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would strenuously contend that what all the Labour Court has denied is attendant benefits and yearly increments which has been restricted only for the purpose of terminal benefits and, as the Labour Court had directed continuity of service, the petitioner must be deemed to have been in service through out and as such his seniority from 10.4.1974 must be taken into consideration. Learned counsel would contend that, in any event, since the Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the workman, and had not appointed him afresh, the service rendered by the petitioner prior to the order of punishment of removal i.e., for the period from 10.4.1974 to 7.7.1984, ie., for a period of 10 years 3 months, cannot be ignored and should have been included for the purpose of reckoning his seniority and since, admittedly, candidates appointed prior to 7.1.1994 were considered for promotion to the post of ADC/Controller, the petitioner’s case should also have been considered for promotion to the said post. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, would submit that the Labour Court had restricted the benefit of continuity of service to attendant benefits, yearly increments and for the purpose of terminal benefits and as such it is only the service rendered by the petitioner consequent upon his being reinstated into service on 10.1.1994 which is required to be reckoned for the purpose of seniority and the 2nd respondent had rightly taken 10.1.1994 as the relevant date and since no candidate in Hyderabad Zone, appointed on or after 7.1.1994, had come within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of ADC/Controller, the petitioner had rightly been denied the said benefit. The Award and the relief granted by the Labour Court are not free from ambiguity. While this Court could well have been saved the trouble of having to interpret the scope of the relief granted by the Labour Court in its Award, if the Labour Court had been more specific in the relief granted, what cannot be lost sight of is that the petitioner was reinstated into service and was not appointed afresh. Whatever may be the interpretation to be placed with regards the period from the date of his removal i.e., 7.7.1984 till the date of the Award i.e., 16.8.1993, the fact remains that, consequent upon his reinstatement, the petitioner would have, in any event, been entitled for being extended the benefit of service from the date of his initial appointment as a conductor on 10.4.1974 till the date on which the order of removal was passed on 7.7.1984 i.e., 10 years 3 months. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would refer to the A.P.S.R.T.C. Regulations to contend that seniority of an employee is required to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment and as such the entire period must be reckoned for the purpose of seniority. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, would submit that since the break in service from 7.7.1984 till the date of the award ie., 16.8.1993 has not been considered as continuity of service, it would amount to break in service necessitating, the said period being ignored for the purpose of reckoning seniority. The 2nd respondent has failed to take into consideration the fact that the Labour Court had directed reinstatement in which event the petitioner would have undoubtedly been entitled for computation of the service rendered by him prior to the date of removal also reckoned for the purpose of seniority. In the absence of any specific statutory provision justifying non-inclusion of the said period for the purpose of reckoning seniority, the petitioner cannot be denied the said benefit. Since the impugned order does not refer to any such statutory provision which justifies denying the said benefit, ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and the respondents directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for proper fixation of his seniority and for consideration of his case for promotion as ADC/Controller in accordance with law within a period of three months of date of receipt of the order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 30-1-2008 asp