A.P.S.R.T.C. vs N. Sudhakar Reddy

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The respondent was employed as a Conductor in the appellants-Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge sheet dated 15.04.1996. The explanation submitted by the respondent was found not satisfactory and accordingly, departmental enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges are proved. Taking the same into account, the 2nd appellant passed an order, dated 29.08.1996 removing the respondent from service.

The respondent filed I.D. No. 241 of 2007 before the Labour Court, Guntur under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act''). The Labour Court accepted the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry. However, in exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act, it has set aside the order of removal and granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages and attendant benefits.

The respondent filed W.P. No. 17644 of 2005 before this Court, not satisfied with the relief granted by the Labour court. One of the points urged was that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of special grade increment, which is granted on completion of 12 years of service from the date of initial appointment. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by observing that the respondent is entitled to the special grade increment and for this purpose,- the entire service including the one during which he was under suspension and out of service on account of order of removal shall be taken into account. Hence, this writ appeal by the Corporation.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

The Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and granted the relief in the following manner:

"In the result, the order of removal dated 29.8.1996 and the respondent is directed to re-instate the applicant into service with continuity of service but without backwages."

Not only the backwages were denied but also the relief of attendant benefits was not granted. The respondent understood the implication thereof in a proper manner. His immediate threat was about the denial of special grade increment. The Regulations framed by the Corporation provide for grant of special grade increment for every employee, who completes 12 years of service from the date of initial recruitment. The Corporation however insisted that it is only when an employee has 12 years of active service that he would be entitled to such an increment. They made their stand clear through memo, dated 11.07.1990.

Learned Single Judge did not modify the award much less did he grant the relief of continuity of service. In a way, he has upheld the award passed by the Labour Court. However, he has made an observation to the effect that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of special grade increment. He has proceeded as though the entire service including the one during which the respondent was out of service must be taken into account.

The matter is no longer res integra. In A.P.S.R.T.C. and Another Vs. S. Narsagoud, , the identical question arose. There also, the relief granted by the Labour Court was the one of reinstatement into service, but without backwages, as in the instant case. The employee claimed the notional increments on the assumption that the period during which he was out of service must be counted in the context of working out the notional increments. This Court accepted his contention and granted the relief. The Supreme Court held that.

"The Regulations referred to hereinabove clearly spell out that the period spent on the extraordinary leave or leave without pay or a period of overstayal after the expiry of leave or joining time cannot count towards increments; unless the order of the competent authority sanctioning the extraordinary leave or leave without pay or the order commuting the period of overstayal into extraordinary leave or leave without pay is accompanied by a specific order to count the period for increments. A period of unauthorised absence from duty treated as a misconduct and held liable to be punished by way of penalty cannot be placed on a footing better than the period of extraordinary leave or leave without pay or a period of overstayal. Ordinarily, the increments are earned on account of the period actually spent on duty or during the period spent on leave the entitlement to which has been earned on account of the period actually spent on duty. The direction of the High Court entitling the respondent to earn increments during the period of unauthorised absence from duty though held liable to be punished in departmental inquiry proceedings would amount to putting a premium on the misconduct of the employee."

From this, it is evident that an employee would qualify for increments, if only he has rendered the effective service for the corresponding period. In other words, if he is not in service at all, the mere fact that he is reinstated into service and that the relief of continuity of service was granted does not entitle him to get the benefit. The special increment stands on a higher footing in this behalf.

Therefore, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, insofar as it held that the respondent is entitled to special grade increment.

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.