M. Rama Rao vs Asst. Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hyd. and Another

The writ petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner joined the services of the A.P.S.R.T.C. as Conductor on 21-6-1966 and while serving so, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under the provisions of the A.P.S.R.T.C. C.C.A. Regulations. The petitioner was removed from service as a disciplinary measure w.e.f. 22-4-1967. Being aggrieved by the said action of the management, the petitioner sought reference u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the proper Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. Accordingly, the dispute was referred to the Additional Industrial-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.706, L.E.N. & TE (Labour-I) Department, dated 5-10-1982. The Labour * Court registered the said reference as I.D.No.88/82 and after adjudication it passed the award on 25-3-1985 and the operative portion of the award reads thus :

"In the result, the order of removal passed against the petitioner is set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith, with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The petitioner is not entitled to any back wages. He is entitled to his wages from the date of this order. Award is passed accordingly."

The petitioner was reinstated into service as per the direction of the Labour Court on 26-6-1985. The petitioner was retired from the service w.e.f. 30-9-1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. On retirement, the respondent did not pay the gratuity admissible to the petitioner taking into account the out of employment period i.e. from 22-4-1967 to 26-6-1985. Being aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed. The respondent have filed counter. In the counter, the management has contended that during 22-4-1967 to 22-6-1985 the petitioner was not in actual service and therefore he is not entitled to claim gratuity for that period. The contention of the management is apparently untenable. Since the Industrial Court has granted to the petitioner the continuity of service, it should be held that for all practical purposes the petitioner should be deemed to have been in continuous service all through. If that is so, there is no justification to exclude the period between 22-4-1967 and 26-6-1985 for the purpose of computation of the gratuity payable to the petitioner.

In the result, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to compute the gratuity payable to the petitioner taking into account the out of employment period i.e. between 22-4-1967 and 26-6-1985 into account and after so computing to pay the balance of gratuity to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.