V.V.G. REDDY versus APSRTC, NIZAMABAD REGION & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 13-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 1 S.C.R. 223 
V.V.G. REDDY 
A 
)' 
v. 
APSRTC, NIZAMABAD REGION & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2009) 
JANUARY 13, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
LABOUR LAWS: 
Notional increments -
Claim for -
Disciplinary c 
proceedings culminating in dismissal of workman -
Reinstatement by Labour Court but without backwages and 
attendant benefits - Claim for notional increments - Held: 
Award appeared to have been passed on consent of parties 
- Workman not only foregone backwages but also attendant D 
I 
benefits - He was not in service during the period in question 
- In the circumstances, workman not entitled to notional 
increments. 
The appellant was a bus conductor under the 
respondent State Transport Corporation. Consequent 
E 
upon the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, 
he was dismissed from service. However, the Labour 
Court directed his ·reinstatement with continuity in service 
~ 
. but without backwages and attendant benefits. In the 
execution petition his claim for regularization with effect 
F 
from 1.10.1983 was allowed. But as he was not allowed 
notional increments, he filed a writ petition praying for 
grant of notional increments for the period between 
1.10.1983 and 15.2.1989. The writ petition was allowed. 
However, as the writ appeal filed by the Corporation was 
G 
allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the 
.. , 
workman filed the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
223 
H 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The appellant himself has stated in his 
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the award 
was passed by the Labour Court on consent of the 
parties. Interpretation of terms of consent will depend 
upon the nature of the lis and the background events. The 
B terms of the consent order have not been produced. 
However, the Court will proceed on the premise that the 
parties agreed that the appellant would be reinstated 
within a month from the date of the award. The appellant 
was, therefore, not only denied back wages but also the 
C attendant benefits. The appellant, had not only foregone 
back wages but also attendant benefits. The words 
"attendant benefits" should be given its natural meaning. 
The "attendant benefits" were in regard to a period for 
which the appellant was denied back wages. [Para 11, 10 
D and 14] [227-G; 228-A-C] 
A.P. State Road Transport Corporation & ors. vs. Abdul 
Kareem (2005) 6 SCC 36 and A.P. SRTC & Anr. vs. S. 
Narsagoud (2003) 2 SCC 212, relied on. 
E 
1.2. The appellant has been directed to be reinstated 
in service not by reason of an award holding the order 
of termination as wholly illegal and, thus, void ab initio. 
On what premise, parties entered into a compromise is 
not known. It is possible to hold that findings of the 
F Enquiry Officer which might have been accepted by the 
disciplinary authority holding him guilty of misconduct 
had not been set aside; the Management might have 
thought that denial of back wages and attendant benefits 
would be sufficient punishment. If that be so, appellant 
G being not in service during the period in question, namely 
from 1.10.1983 to 15.2.1989, would not be entitled to 
increments. [Para 18] [231-8-C] 
H 
Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma vs. State of Uttar 
Pradesh & ors. AIR 1962 SC 1334, held inapplicable. 
, 
+ 
V.V.G. REDDY v. APSRTC, NIZAMABAD REGION & ANR. 225 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1962 SC 1334 
(2005) 6 sec 36 
(2003) 2 sec 212 
held inapplicable 
Para 9 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 15 
Para 16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 99 
of 2009. 
A 
B 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.9.2007 of the 
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. c 
658 of 2007. 
T. Anamika for the Appellant. 
D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
5.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. Appellant is before us questioning the judgment and 
order dated 21.9.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High 
E 
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ 
Appeal No.658 of 2007 and others whereby and whereunder 
the said writ appeal preferred from a judgment and order dated 
29.10.2002 passed in W.P. No. 21410 of 2002 filed by 
appellant and others was allowed. 
F 
3. Respondent -
Corporation is constituted and 
incorporated under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 
(64 of 1950). Appellant joined its services as a conductor in 
the year 19

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