Shaik Meera v. Musheerabad,Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B SESHASAYANA REDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3924 of 2009
O R D E R:
The petitioner joined in APSRTC as driver. An order keeping him under suspension came to be passed on 16-08-1989 on the allegation that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and proceeded to remove the petitioner from service on 11-12-1989. The petitioner filed an appeal and a review on 12-05-1990 and 15-09-1990 respectively. As his appeal and review did not yield any fruitful result, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Guntur, which has been entertained as I.D.No.201 of 1990. The Labour Court passed an award on 23-11-1994 directing reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages with continuity of service. Pursuant to the award, second respondent reinstated the petitioner into service. Again, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the same were ended with the removal of the petitioner from service.
The order of removal came to be set aside by the Labour Court in I.D.No.106 of 2000. The Labour Court modified the punishment from removal to retirement from service with effect from 27-09-1996 adjusted to 30-09-1996. The grievance of the petitioner is that out of period of service from 16-08-1989 to February, 1995 has not been counted for the purpose of gratuity. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned standing counsel for APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the respondents. Indisputably, the petitioner came to be reinstated into service as per the award passed in I.D.No.201 of 1990. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into service as per the direction of the Labour Court in the month of February, 1995. It is no more res integra that once the workman is reinstated into service with continuity of service, his out of period of service is to be counted for the purpose of gratuity vide a decision of this Court reported in M.Rama Rao v.
Operative part
Assistant Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Central Bus Station, Hyderabad and another [1] . Since the Labour Court has granted continuity of service to the petitioner, for all practical purposes, the petitioner should be deemed to be in continuity of service. If that is so, there is no justifiable reason to exclude the period from 23-11-1994 to February, 1995 for the purpose of gratuity. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to compute gratuity payable to the petitioner taking into consideration the out of employment period from 16-08-1989 to February, 1995 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ___________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J Date: 06-03-2009 KLP [1] 1998(2) ALT 534
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.