LexANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. versus ABDUL KAREEM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. v. ABDUL KAREEM AUGUST 2, 2005 [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] Labour Law: Termination of services of a conductor-Industrial dispute-Labour Court gave an award directing his reinstatement in the service without back wages- Notional increment not allowed by the employer-Challenge to-Allowed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Principle of law on the issue of notional increment is no more res integra-ln absence of specific dire~tions that the D employee would be entitled to all the consequential benefits, i~ would be incongruous to suggest that the employee even though held guilty and remained absent from duty for a long time, could continue to earn increments though . not entitled to back wages for the period of absence-Thus, Courts below erred in law in allowing the benefit of notional increment tr the employee. E F The questions which arose for determination in these appeals were as to whether Award of Labour Court reinstating an employee without back wages would imply continuity of service and as to whether notional increments were to be given to the employee for the period for which h~ was not in service. Allowing Civil Appeal No. 7799 of 2003 and dismissing Civil Appeal No.37 of 2005, the Court HELD: The principle of law on point are no more res integra. In the G instant case, 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 H 918 " _,..._ -, ; ANDHM PRADESH STATE ROAD TPT. CORPN. v. ABDUL KAREEM [SEMA, J.] 919 ...... • \ claim a benefit of increments notionally earned during the period when A ). 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, continue to earn increments though there is no payment of wages for the period of absence. Thus, both the Single Judge and Division Bench had erred in law in B allowing the benefit of increments notionally to the employee during the period when he was out of se1·vice. (922-D, G, H; 923-A-B] A.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. v. S. Narsagoud, (2003] 2 SCC 212, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7797 of2003. c From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2002 of the Anrlhra Pradesh High Court in W.A.No. 1209 of 2002. WITH C.A. No. 37 of 2005. D R. Santhan Krishnan, Ms. K. Radha Rani and D. Mahesh Babu, for the Appellant in C.A.No. 7797/2003 and Respondent in C.A.No. 37 of 2005. P.S. Narasimha, Ananga Bhattacharyya and Avijeet Lala for Mis. P.S.N. E & Co. for the Respondent in C.A. No. 7797/03 and Appellant in C.A.No. 37 of 2005. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H.K. SEMA, J. These two appeals arise out of a common question of F Jaw 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. ~hanker. In Civil Appeal No. 7797 of 2003, preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C., the G 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 H 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. A 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 Couri assailing B 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 wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.