P.E. Chandrashekarappa vs The Managing Director and The Divisional Controller, KSRTC

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the endorsement dated 17.1.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-F and has sought for writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to fix the pay scale of the petitioner as per divisional establishment order No. 62/2010 vide Annexure ''C''. By the impugned endorsement at Annexure-F, the second respondent has informed the petitioner that as consequential benefits were not given and only continuity of service was ordered, the basic pay at the time when the petitioner was dismissed from service was Rs. 1,340/-, his basic pay has been fixed at Rs. 5,310/-.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts are:

The petitioner was working as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation since 1980. He was dismissed from service on 9.9.1994. The dispute was raised in Ref. No. 63/2000. The Labour Court by its order dated 17.9.2004 has allowed the reference and directed reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages. It was challenged by the respondent-Corporation in W.P. No. 18658/2005. This court by its order dated 10.8.2009 has confirmed the order passed the Labour Court and further has imposed punishment of withholding two increments for four years without cumulative effect. It has become final. Thereafter, the second respondent by order dated 24.2.2010 has reinstated the petitioner into service with continuity of service and without back wages and denying two annual increments for a period of four years. The petitioner was paid minimum basic pay attached to the post of Conductor. The petitioner approached this court in W.P. No. 36561/2011. This court by its order dated 28.9.2011 has directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.6.2009 in accordance with law Thereafter, the impugned endorsement dated 17.1.2012 has been issued as per Annexure-F. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the second respondent has erred in fixing the basic pay at Rs. 5,310/-. The pay should have been fixed taking into consideration the truce agreement, revised pay scales and circulars issued by the Corporation. Because consequential benefits has not been mentioned in the award/order the respondent has denied all benefits. He therefore submitted that the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law.

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned endorsement does not call for interference. She also submitted that the Labour Court as well as this Court have directed the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and without back wages and consequential benefits have not been given. Therefore, the second respondent has fixed the basic pay at Rs. 5,310/- in terms of the order passed by this Court and Labour Court. Therefore, the impugned endorsement does not call for interference. She placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another, .

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the impugned endorsement calls for interference?

It is relevant to note, the petitioner was working as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation. He was dismissed from service on 9.9.1994. The petitioner has raised dispute in Ref. No. 63/2000. The reference was partly allowed by order dated 17.9.2004 directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and without back wages. The Corporation has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court in W.P. No. 18658/2005. This court has confirmed he order passed by the Labour Court and has imposed punishment of withholding two increments for a period of four years without cumulative effect. It has become final. Thereafter, the petitioner has been reinstated into service and his pay has been fixed. The grievance of the petitioner is that his pay has been fixed without taking into consideration the consequential benefits.

It is clear from the order passed by this Court and also the Labour Court that there is no direction to pay the consequential benefits. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another, has observed as follows:

Where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions etc.

It is clear, when reinstatement is a consequence of imposing lesser punishment, neither back-wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. The continuity of service directed in such cases shall be only for the purpose of pensionary/retirement benefits and not for other benefits like increments, promotions etc. In the present case, the misconduct has been proved. The Labour Court has directed reinstatement without back wages and continuity of service. There is no direction to pay the consequential benefits. This court has confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court and has imposed punishment of withholding two increments for a period of four years without cumulative effect. Therefore, it is clear, neither this Court not the Labour have awarded consequential benefits. Therefore, the second respondent has fixed the pay of the petitioner without taking into consideration the consequential benefits. It cannot be found fault with. The impugned endorsement is justified in law and it does not call for interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.