A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ANR. versus S. NARSAGOUD

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 386 · Decided: 15-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ANR. 
v. 
S. NARSAGOUD 
JANUARY 15, 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Pay 
C and Allowances) Regulations, 1964: 
Regulations 13(2) and (8)-Jncrements-Effect on of unauthorised 
absence from duty-Workman-Unauthorised absence from duty-Removal 
+ 
from service-Industrial dispute-Labour Court directing reinstatement of 
D workman with continuity of service but without back wages-Writ petition by 
workman claiming periodical increments which would have been earned by 
him had he been in service during the period of absence-Allowed by High 
Court-Held, workman after having been held guilty of unauthorised absence 
from duty cannot claim benefit of increments notionally earned during the 
period of unauthorised absence in the absence of a specific dirt!ction in that 
E regard-Judgment of High Court set aside-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-
s.2A(2)-Workman-Claim for increments. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6362 of 
2000 
F · 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.1999 of the High Court of 
G 
H 
Andhra Pradesh in WA I 855/99. 
'· 
R. Santhana Krishnan and Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
The respondent was a Conductor, and hence a workman, in the 
employment of the appellant Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport 
Corporation. He remained absent from duty between 5.6. I 982 and 8.8. I 982 
+ 
on the first occasion and again between I 3. I 0. I 992 and I . I I .1992 on the 
second occasion. A chargesheet was served on him alleging the period of 
386 
A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. NARSAGOUD 
387 
-r 
absence to be an unauthorised absence from duty. The respondent pleaded A 
that he had remained absent because of ill health-due to jaundice for the 
first period of absence and due to chest pain and fever for the second 
period of absence from duty. Jn the departmental inquiry proceedings the 
two charges referable to two periods of absence from duty framed against 
the respondent were found to be proved and the explanation for absence B 
as offered by him was found not to have been substantiated. The respondent 
t 
was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service. 
The respondent raised a dispute under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act. 1947, as amended in its application to the State of Andhra 
Pradesh by A.P. Amendment Act No. 32 of 1987. The Labour Court by its 
Award dated 24. 12. 1997 held that no fault could be found with the disciplinary c 
t-
inquiry proteedings or with the findings arrived thereat. However, the Labour 
Court con,cluded that though the respondent was guilty of the charges levelled 
against him but be had been without employment during the period of absence 
and has suffered thereby and so the penalty of not providing backwages 
would be the appropriate penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case, D 
"while ordering for reinstatement with continuity of service". In the operative 
part of its Award the Labour Court reiterated that an Award was being passed 
.. 
"directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity 
of service but without backwages". 
Feeling aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court, the respondent E 
preferred a writ petition in the High Court which was heard and disposed of 
.by a learned single Judge vide the judgment dated 16.9.1999. A grievance 
was raised before the High Court that although the respondent was reinstated, 
but while fixing the wages payable to him on his reinstatement, the periodical 
increments which would have been earned by him had he been in service F 
~· 
during the period of absence were not taken into account. The High Court 
directed the appellant Corporation to compute the periodical increments that 
would have been earned by the respondent had he been in service during the 
period of absence from duty and to fix the wages payable to the respondent 
after his reinstatement by taking into account the said increments. The appellant 
preferred an intra Court appeal which has been dismissed by a Division G 
Bench of the High Court by its impugned order. The appellant has filed this 
.., 
appeal by special leave . 
The respondent has chosen to remain absent of notice having been 
served on him. Therefore, the hearing has been set down ex parte against 
H 
him. 
A 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] l S.C.R. 
The only submission made by the learn

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.