The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Avanigadda Depot, Krishna District v. B.S.Rao
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed
Judgment
Operative part
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P.No.24848 of 2005 ORDER: Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-APSRTC. Though notice is served, none appeared for respondent No.1- Conductor. Respondent No.1, while working as Conductor with petitioner, was removed from service. Assailing the order of removal, he filed I.D., which was allowed, with a direction to the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.1 into service as Conductor with continuity of service, but without back wages. Respondent No.1 having joined service in pursuance of the award of the Labour Court, filed miscellaneous application for release of notional increments from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. T h e Labour Court allowed the said application. Assailing the said order of the Labour Court, the petitioner- APSRTC filed the writ petition inter alia contending that having regard [1] , to the judgment of the apex Court in APSRTC v. Abdul Kareem wherein it was held that the workman is not entitled to any consequential relief on reinstatement as a matter of course, unless specially directed by forum granting reinstatement, the Labour Court Committed an error in allowing the application for release of notional increments, and more so when the Labour Court while passing the award, did not grant back wages. Inasmuch as the Labour Court while directing reinstatement of respondent No.1 into service has not awarded any consequential benefits, except continuity of service, the Labour Court could not have allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the respondent No.1 praying release of notional increments, and having regard to the judgment of the apex Court in APSRTC v. Abdul Kareem, the order passed by the Labour Court, impugned in the writ petition, which directed release of notional increments to respondent No.1, cannot be sustained, and it is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. __________________ (N.V. RAMANA, J.) Date:31st March 2006. GRK [1] (2005) 6 SCC 36
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 31 Mar 2006. The bench was N V RAMANA.
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.