http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7797 of 2003

PETITIONER: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.           

RESPONDENT: Abdul Kareem                                                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/08/2005

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & H.K. SEMA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 37/2005

D. Shanker                                                              \005Appellant

Versus

A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad Region                          \005Respondent

H.K.SEMA, J

       These two appeals arise out of a common question of law and  fact and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.   

Civil Appeal No. 7797 of 2003 is preferred by the Andhra  Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) and Civil  Appeal No. 37 of 2005 is preferred by the workman -   D. Shanker.  

       In Civil Appeal No. 7797 of 2003, preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C.,   the facts are as follows: -

The respondent was appointed as Retainer Conductor under the  appellant-Corporation in the year 1970.  He was subsequently removed  from the service in 1971.  However, he was again appointed as  Conductor on 12.06.1972.  He secured a subsequent appointment  without disclosing that he worked as a Conductor earlier under the  department.  When it came to the knowledge of the appellant that the  workman had worked as a Conductor at Karimnagar Depot earlier and   was removed from the service, a proceeding was initiated against him  and he was removed from service on 01.05.1975.  Respondent raised an  Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court assailing the order of his  removal from service.  It may be noted that the dispute was raised at a  belated stage in the year 1988. The Labour Court by an Award dated  28.12.1992 came to the conclusion that the dismissal of the respondent  from service cannot be sustained and the Court directed the respondent  be reinstated into service without back wages.  It may be noted that the  workman did not challenge the order of the Labour Court directing to  reinstate him into service without back wages.  Pursuant to the order of  the Labour Court, the workman was reinstated on 28.05.1993.   Thereafter, the appellant passed an order dated 17.05.2000 stating that  the respondent would not be eligible for notional increments from the  date of his removal from service.  Being aggrieved, respondent  preferred Writ Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh  assailing the order dated 17.05.2000.  In the said Writ Petition the  respondent inter alia prayed for granting of notional increments for the  period from 01.05.1975 to 10.06.1993.  Learned Single Judge,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

following the earlier decision of the Division Bench of High Court in  A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. P. Nageshwar Rao, 2001 (4) ALD 568, directed the  Corporation that the pay of the respondent should be fixed by taking  into consideration the notional increments.  Aggrieved thereby, the  appellant preferred a Writ Appeal No. 1209 of 2002 without any result.  Hence the present petition.

       In Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2005 preferred by the workman \026 D.  Shanker, the facts are as follows: -

       The workman joined the Corporation as a Conductor in 1972 and  on 16.03.1972 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for  not having collected an alleged amount of Rs. 1.20 paisa between two  stages.  Pursuant to the proceeding initiated against him he was  removed from service on 24.08.1972.  He raised an Industrial Dispute  before the Labour Court and the Labour Court by its Award dated  24.11.1992 held that dismissal of the workman is disproportionate to  the gravity of offence/charge and directed the reinstatement of the  workman into service by maintaining continuity of service but without  back wages.  Petitioner was reinstated on 08.06.1993 as a fresh  appointee without any increment in his salary.  The representation of  the petitioner was rejected by the Corporation.  Thereafter, he filed a  Writ Petition, which was allowed by the Learned Single Judge on  6.11.2002 holding that he is entitled for grant of notional increments.   Aggrieved thereby, the Corporation filed Writ Appeal before the  Division Bench which was allowed by the order dated 07.08.2003 on  the ground that the point of law is well settled by the judgment of this  Court.    

       The question that revolves around for determination is, whether  Labour Court’s Award of reinstatement without back wages would  imply continuity of service and whether notional increments are to be  given to the employee for the period for which he was not in service, in  absence of specific direction in that regard?  At this stage, we may notice the operative portion of the Award  of the Labour Court in Para 4 of its Award, which reads as under: "\005.the dismissal of the petitioner from service cannot be  sustained and he has to be reinstated but without back  wages."

       We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

       It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that it is a well  established principle in Labour Industrial Law that upon setting aside  an order of termination, the workman is reinstated as if the contract of  employment originally entered into had been continued.  The counsel  further contended that in such cases the terms and conditions of the  contract which was obtained when the workman was in the  employment of the employer prior to his wrongful dismissal which has  been set aside continue to govern the relationships between the parties  and the workman continues to be in the employment of the employer in  the terms and conditions of the contract.  According to counsel denial  of consequential relief is in exception, unless such denial was being  specifically spelt-out, otherwise, the natural and consequential relief  must follow.  Counsel would further contend that in the given facts, this  would be competent enough to mould the relief as the workman was  reinstated after more than a decade.   

       In our considered opinion, the argument advanced by the counsel  is not tenable in law in the view taken by this Court in the recent  decision.  In the case of A.P. SRTC and Anr. \026 Appellants Vs. S.  Narsagoud \026 Respondent (2003)2  SCC 212, this Court had occasion  to deal with the identical controversy and succinctly crystallized the  point of law.  In that case the respondent was a Conductor in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

employment of appellant - A.P.S.R.T.C.  He remained absent from  duty between 05.06.1982 and 08.08.1982 and again between  13.10.1992 and 01.11.1992.  A departmental inquiry was initiated  against him on the charges of unauthorized absence which ended in the  punishment of removal from service and a dispute was raised before the  Labour Court.  The Labour Court upheld the departmental enquiry and  the findings arrived thereat, but the respondent was directed to be  reinstated with continuity of service but without back-wages.  The  Learned Single Judge, on being approached by the respondent, directed  the appellant to fix the wages payable to him on his reinstatement by  taking into account the increments that he would have earned had he  been in service during the period of absence from duty.  This finding of  the Learned Single Judge was affirmed in an appeal by the Division  Bench.  This Court allowed the appeal preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C.  

       The principle of law on point are no more res integra.  This Court  in S. Narsagoud (supra) succinctly crystallized principle of law in  Paragraph 9 of the judgment on Page SCC 215: "We find merit in the submission so made.  There is a  difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied  by a simple direction for continuity of service and a  direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific  direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the  consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from  reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that  the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the  increments earned during the period of absence.  In our  opinion, the employee after having been held guilty of  unauthorized absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of  increments notionally earned during the period of  unauthorized absence in the absence of a specific direction  in that regard and merely because he has been directed to  be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service."

       Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, as already noticed, the  Labour Court specifically directed that the reinstatement would be  without back wages.  There is no specific direction that the employee  would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. Therefore, in the  absence of specific direction in that regard, merely because an  employee has been directed to be reinstated without back wages, he  could claim a benefit of increments notionally earned during the period  when he was not on duty or during the period when he was out of  service.  It would be incongruous to suggest that an employee, having  been held guilty and remained absent from duty for a long time,  continues to earn increments though there is no payment of wages for  the period of absence.   

       In view of what has been stated above, both the Learned Single  Judge and Division Bench had erred in law in allowing the benefit of  increments notionally to the employee during the period when he was  out of service.  Both the orders in C.A. No. 7797 of 2003 are set aside.  

       The net result is Civil Appeal No. 7797 of 2003 preferred by  A.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors. is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2005  preferred by D. Shanker is dismissed.  Parties are asked to bear their  own costs.