APSRTC, Mushirabad, Hyd. and Another vs Labour Court-I, A.P., Hyd. and Another

By this writ petition the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is seeking quashing of the order dated 14-12-1993 passed in M.P. No.61/93 on the file of the Labour Court-I, A.P., Hyderabad.

The petitioner''s case in short is that the 2nd respondent who was employed as driver with the petitioner Corporation was removed from service on the ground of mis-conduct. The respondent therefore raised an Industrial Dispute before the Government and the same was referred to the 1st respondent. It was registered as I.D. No.92/83 and award was passed by the 1st respondent directing reinstatement of Respondent No.2 with full back wages and other attendant benefits. The petitioner Corporation challenged the said award in W.P. No. 10902 of 1985. While admitting the writ petition, the High Court was pleased to grant interim stay on 13-9-1985 of operation of the award on a condition that half of the back wages awarded by the labour Court should be deposited by the petitioner and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.20,386.23. By order dated 21-9-1988, the writ petition was disposed of restricting the back wages to 50%. Further according to the petitioner since the back-wages deposited were already withdrawn the Court held that no further orders were necessary. The 2nd respondent filed Writ Appeal No.95/89 against the said order. But the same was dismissed by an order passed on 10-4-1989.

It appears that the 2nd respondent filed an application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 1st respondent claiming that he was still entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.22,622.30 and that the calculation of back-wages was done without taking into consideration the revised pay scale-and increments. The said application was registered as M.P.No.353/87 (old) which was renumbered as M.P.61/93, By an order dated 14-12-1993, the Labour Court allowed the said M.P. and directed the petitioner Corporation to recalculate the remaining half of full back wages payable upto the date of reinstatement from the date of removal i.e. from 21-1-1976 to 17-7-1985, giving two increments and revised scales of pay. However, according to the petitioner the said order was illegal and therefore it became necessary for the State Transport Corporation to file the present writ petition.

The 2nd respondent docs not dispute the fact that by an interim order passed on 30-9-1985 in W.P.M.P. No.15948/85 the petitioner was directed by the lower Court to deposit half of the back wages accrued till the date of the award. The 2nd respondent goes a step further and says that full wages for the period from the date of 2nd respondent reporting for duty were also allowed in his favour. We are, however, concerned with the first part of the order and the controversy raised before this Court in the present writ petition, is whether the arrears were to be paid on the basis of the revised pay scales and the annual increments which fell due to the workman till the date of reinstatement. However, according to the petitioner since the back wages were restricted to 50% by an order passed by the High Court on 21-9-1988'' and since the amount having been worked out on the basis of the 5 0% back wages was deposited by the Corporation and withdrawn by the workman without any protest or without any objection, no further liability arose for recalculating the amount payable on the basis of the revised pay scales and the annual increments which fell due according to the revised pay scales upto the date of reinstatement.

The 1st respondent herein observed in his impugned order that the petitioner Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C) had not considered the annual increments according to the revised pay scales which had already come into force by the time the amount was deposited towards half of the back wages. The Labour Court further observed that the question of payment of wages after the petitioner was reinstated was not covered by the award. If any incorrect calculation was made by the respondent Corporation in fixing the workman''s pay after his reinstatement, the workman was not precluded from approaching the concerned authority under Payment of Wages Act to get orders for payment of salary correctly calculated according to the rules and regulations and within the existing pay scales which were already put in force.

I do not find any discrepancy in this view taken by the Labour Court. When a direction is given for payment of wages, it need hardly be stated that the amount payable has to be worked out on the basis of the prevalent pay scales and the annual increments which had already fallen due from the date of implementation of the revised pay scales till the date of termination; and even for the period covering the date of termination till the date of reinstatement the workman would be entitled to receive the annual increments which may fall due from year to year unless, by a specific order of the Court, the workman has been disqualified from taking advantage of the revised pay scales and the annual-increments from year to year after the introduction of the revised pay scales. In the instant case, no such exception has been made by the High Court in the order passed in W.P. No. 10902/ 1985 on 21-9-1988. In the operative part of the said order, the High Court observed that the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the respondent forthwith, with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, including full back wages. The High Court further took note of the fact that the appeal had been allowed and the employee was reinstated afresh. For giving effective meaning to the word ''afresh'' mentioned in this order it can be held that the wages according to the revised pay scales may become payable to the workman concerned but not annual increments because "fresh appointment" cannot be treated as including the payment of annual increments retrospectively as may fell due from year to year. However, the High Court was further pleased to observe as under:

"At this stage, I feel it is not desirable to interfere except with the quantum-back wages. The back-wages have been restricted to 50%. As the 50% back wages have been withdrawn, no further orders are necessary".

It, therefore, becomes abundantly clear from the operative part of the order passed by the High Court that no interference with the order passed by the Labour Court was thought fit to be made and therefore the order passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman forthwith with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, including full back wages, would apply in its full extent and meaning. If that view is taken, there could be no constraint on upholding the direction given by the Labour Court in the impugned order as stated in the last paragraph which is the operative part of the Labour Court''s order which reads as under :--

"In the result petition is allowed. Respondent is directed to recalculate the half full backwages payable to the petitioner upto the date of reinstatement from the date of his removal i.e., 20-1-76 to 17-7-85 giving credit to the petitioner the annual increments and also the revised scales of pay adopted for the year 1979 or 1980 and pay the difference within a period of three months from the date of this order failing which to pay the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment."

With a view to making it more clear and specific, it is hereby ordered and directed that the Petitioner-Corporation shall pay to the workman (R-2) 50% of the back wages calculated on the basis of the revised pay scale with annual increments which may have been earned by the workman from year to year from the date of his removal till the date of his reinstatement as if he had not been removed from service. The workman is entitled to receive 50% of the amount so arrived at on recalculation after deducting the amount already deposited by the employer and withdrawn by the workman. Such ''difference'' shall be paid by the employer within three months from today failing which the employer shall be liable to pay interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the impugned order till payment.''

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed and the order passed by the Labour Court is upheld. No costs.