AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
C.M. No. 5688 - LPA of 2012
There is a delay of 163 days in filing the appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the delay is condoned. Civil Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of.
L.P.A. No. 2151 of 2012
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala against the order dated 19.3.2012, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 17490 of 2011.
A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. Respondent No. 1-Om Parkash filed writ petition with a prayer to direct the appellant-Corporation to grant him pensionary benefits by regularising the suspension period and benefit of continuity of service in terms of award dated 7.10.1992, Annexure P.1 w.e.f 11.4.1988 to 19.5.1993. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 19.3.2012 holding that the petitioner stood reinstated in service from the date he was terminated on 11.4.1988 for all intents and purposes which necessarily includes notional pay fixation also though without back wages; the deemed continuance in service means that the petitioner though did not perform duties during the period when he was out of service but the law shall presume that he remained on duty during the said period; the resultant effect would be that except the arrears of back wages, rest of the service benefits including notional pay fixation shall have to be granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-corporation is before this Court through the present Letters Patent Appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the submissions which were made at the time of issuance of notice of motion on 21.12.2012, which reads thus:-
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Labour Court in the impugned award while granting reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages had additionally given a specific direction that ''four increments of the workman be also stopped with cumulative effect''. It is submitted that notwithstanding the same in the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has granted those increments also while interpreting the same very award.
Reliance was placed on the following observations in the judgment of the Hon''ble
Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. and Another Vs. S. Narsagoud, in support of his aforesaid contention:-
We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. In our opinion, the employee after having been held guilty of unauthorised absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of unauthorised absence in the absence of a specific direction in that regard and merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with benefit of continuity in service.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and relied upon judgments in Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, Sushma Bhatia Vs. State of Haryana Mewa Singh (Retd.) (Driver) v. Chairman, PRTC and others, 2007(4) S.C.T. 602 (P&H) and Boota Singh v. Chandigarh Transport Undertaking and another, 2009(6) S.L.R. 686 (P&H).
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
The Labour Court in the award dated 7.10.1992 while ordering reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service had held that the workman was not entitled to back wages. Four increments of the workman were also ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect. The relief clause in the award reads as under:-
In view of the findings on issues No. 1 and 2 above, I hold that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. Four increments of the workman are also ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect. He is directed to report for duty within thirty days of the publication of the award. The reference stands answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in S. Narsagoud''s case (supra) noticed that there is distinction between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is ordered with specific direction. In the present case, the Labour Court award dated 7.10.1992 had specifically stipulated that four increments of the workman with cumulative effect shall be stopped. This award had become final. Thus, in view of pronouncement of the Apex Court in S. Narsagoud''s case (supra), the respondent-workman was not entitled to the benefit of four increments which were stopped with cumulative effect. Once that was so, the learned Single Judge to that extent was not right in granting those increments also while interpreting the award passed by the Labour Court.
Adverting to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-workman, it may be noticed that those were not the cases where reinstatement was accompanied by a specific direction. Thus, no advantage can be drawn by learned counsel for the respondent workman from the judgments relied upon by him. In view of the above, while disposing of the appeal, we modify the order of learned Single Judge dated 19.3.2012 and hold that the respondent-workman shall not be entitled to the benefit of four increments which were stopped with cumulative effect vide Labour Court award dated 7.10.1992. The appellant-Corporation shall, thus, revise the pension of the respondent-workman and after re-determining the same, release the amount within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.