Supreme Court of India
V.V.G. REDDYversusAPSRTC, NIZAMABAD REGION & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 25
- Decided
- 13 January 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
A workman reinstated without back wages and attendant benefits is not entitled to notional increments for the period of his absence unless the award expressly provides for such benefit.
Summary
V.V.G. Reddy, a bus conductor employed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings. The Labour Court, on a consent award, ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service but expressly denied back wages and attendant benefits. Reddy sought notional increments for the period from 1 October 1983 to 15 February 1989, arguing that the denial of back wages entitled him to such increments. The High Court allowed the claim, but the Supreme Court held that, in the absence of a specific direction in the award, a workman who was not in service during the period cannot claim notional increments. Reddy was therefore not entitled to the increments, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a workman reinstated without back wages and attendant benefits is entitled to notional increments for the period of his absence.
- Whether the term 'attendant benefits' in a consent award includes notional increments.
- Whether the award passed on consent of the parties can be interpreted to grant such increments.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Labour lawReinstatementNotional incrementsBack wagesAttendant benefitsIndustrial disputeConsent awardDisciplinary dismissal
Judgment
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 223
V.V.G. REDDY A
)'
v.
APSRTC, NIZAMABAD REGION & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2009)
JANUARY 13, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
LABOUR LAWS:
Notional increments - Claim for - Disciplinary c
proceedings culminating in dismissal of workman -
Reinstatement by Labour Court but without backwages and
attendant benefits - Claim for notional increments - Held:
Award appeared to have been passed on consent of parties
- Workman not only foregone backwages but also attendant D
I benefits - He was not in service during the period in question
- In the circumstances, workman not entitled to notional
increments.
The appellant was a bus conductor under the
respondent State Transport Corporation. Consequent E
upon the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him,
he was dismissed from service. However, the Labour
Court directed his ·reinstatement with continuity in service
~ . but without backwages and attendant benefits. In the
execution petition his claim for regularization with effect F
from 1.10.1983 was allowed. But as he was not allowed
notional increments, he filed a writ petition praying for
grant of notional increments for the period between
1.10.1983 and 15.2.1989. The writ petition was allowed.
However, as the writ appeal filed by the Corporation was G
allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the
.., workman filed the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
223 H
,
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A HELD: 1.1. The appellant himself has stated in his
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the award
was passed by the Labour Court on consent of the
parties. Interpretation of terms of consent will depend
upon the nature of the lis and the background events. The
B terms of the consent order have not been produced.
However, the Court will proceed on the premise that the
parties agreed that the appellant would be reinstated
within a month from the date of the award. The appellant
was, therefore, not only denied back wages but also the
C attendant benefits. The appellant, had not only foregone
back wages but also attendant benefits. The words
"attendant benefits" should be given its natural meaning.
The "attendant benefits" were in regard to a period for
which the appellant was denied back wages. [Para 11, 10
D and 14] [227-G; 228-A-C]
A.P. State Road Transport Corporation & ors. vs. Abdul
Kareem (2005) 6 SCC 36 and A.P. SRTC & Anr. vs. S.
Narsagoud (2003) 2 SCC 212, relied on.
E 1.2. The appellant has been directed to be reinstated
in service not by reason of an award holding the order
of termination as wholly illegal and, thus, void ab initio.
On what premise, parties entered into a compromise is
not known. It is possible to hold that findings of the
F Enquiry Officer which might have been accepted by the
disciplinary authority holding him guilty of misconduct
had not been set aside; the Management might have
thought that denial of back wages and attendant benefits
would be sufficient punishment. If that be so, appellant
G being not in service during the period in question, namely
from 1.10.1983 to 15.2.1989, would not be entitled to
increments. [Para 18] [231-8-C]
Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & ors. AIR 1962 SC 1334, held inapplicable.
H
V.V.G. REDDY v. APSRTC, NIZAMABAD REGION & ANR. 225
Case Law Reference: A
AIR 1962 SC 1334 held inapplicable Para 9
(2005) 6 sec 36 relied on Para 15
(2003) 2 sec 212 relied on Para 16 B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 99
of 2009.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.9.2007 of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. c
658 of 2007.
T. Anamika for the Appellant.
D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondents.
+ D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
5.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant is before us questioning the judgment and
order dated 21.9.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High E
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
Appeal No.658 of 2007 and others whereby and whereunder
the said writ appeal preferred from a judgment and order dated
29.10.2002 passed in W.P. No. 21410 of 2002 filed by
appellant and others was allowed. F
3. Respondent - Corporation is constituted and
incorporated under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950
(64 of 1950). Appellant joined its services as a conductor in
the year 1981. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against G
him. He was placed under suspension in the year 1982. In the
,.., said disciplinary proceeding, he, having been found guilty was
dismissed from services.
An industrial dispute was raised by him, which was
eventually referred to the Labour Court by the State of Andhra H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R.
A Pradesh in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under
Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short,
"the Act").
4. By reason of an Award dated 1.8.1988, the Labour
B Court directed his reinstatement in service with continuity therein
but without attendant benefits and back wages.
5. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said Award,
appellant was reinstated in service. However, he was not paid
his salary at par with his colleagues whose services had been
C regularized with effect from 1.10.1983.
6. He filed an Execution Petition being E.P. No. 18of1989
in l.D. No. 581 of 1987 before Labour Court, Hyderabad
praying that his services be directed to be regularized at par
D with his colleagues with effect from 1.10.1983. The said
Execution Petition was allowed.
7. As despite the same, his pay was not fixed at par with
his colleagues and no notional increments had been granted,
a legal notice was issued on his behalf by an Advocate on
E 2.3.1992.
He thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court
which was marked as Writ Petition No. 21410 of 2002 praying
for grant of notional increments for the period between
F 1.10.1983 and 15.2.1989.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 29.10.2002, the
said writ petition was allowed by a learned single judge of the
High Court, directing:
G "The controversy in this writ petition is no more res integra,
in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in
APSRTC, Khammam Region and another Vs. P.
Nageswara Rao. The Division Bench while dealing an
analogous question has held that when an award was
H passed by the labour court directing the respondents to
V.V.G. REDDY v. APSRTC, NIZAMABAD REGION & ANR. 227
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
reinstate the petitioner into service, the action of the A
respondent - Corporation in fixing the pay without taking
into consideration the notional increments is illegal. It is
further held that the Corporation cannot rely on any circular
or regulation that takes away the plain meaning of the
award in the judgment." B
8. A writ appeal was preferred thereagainst by the
" respondent herein. However, the said writ appeal was barred
• by limitation and an application for condonation of delay having
not been allowed, the same was _9ismissed. A Special Leave
Petition filed thereagainst being Special Leave Petition (Civil)
c
No. 1114 of 2004 was allowed by a judgment and order dated
13.2.2007 in terms whereof the matter was remitted to the High
Court for disposal of the case on merit. By reason of the
impugned judgment, the writ appeal preferred by the
respondent herein has been allowed. D
-j.
9. Ms. T. Anamika, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant would urge that in view of the fact that the
appellant was denied back wages only by the Labour Court and
having been reinstated in service with continuity, the High Court E
committed a serious error in declining to grant notional
increments in his favour from the date of his dismissal till the
date of passing of the Award. Strong reliance in this behalf has
been placed on the decision of this Court in Devendra Pratap
Narain Rai Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. [AIR F
1962 SC 1334].
10. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, supported the
impugned judgment.
G
11. The award appeared to have been passed by the
labour court on consent of the parties. Appellant himself stated
so in his affidavit in support of the writ petition.
12. The terms of the consent order have not been produced
H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A before us by the appellant. We will, however, proceed on the
premise that the parties thereto agreed that the appellant would
be reinstated within a month from the said date. Appellant was,
therefore, not only denied back wages but also the attendant
benefits.
B
13. Interpretation of terms of consent will depend upon the
nature of the lis and the background events.
14. Appellant, as noticed hereinbefore, had not only
foregone back wages but also attendant benefits. The word
C "attendant benefits" should.be given its natural meaning. The
"attendant benefits" was in regard to a period for which he had
been denied back wages. A person may be denied back
wages which otherwise can be interpreted to mean that he
would be entitled to claim the benefit of increments notionally.
D
15. We may, however, notice that in A.P. State Road
Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Abdul Kareem [(2005) 6
SCC 36], this Court held:
" ..... the Labour Court specifically directed that the
E reinstatement would be without back wages. There is no
specific direction that the employee would be entitled to
all the consequential benefits. Therefore, in the absence
of specific direction in that regard, merely because an
employee has been directed to be reinstated without back
F wages, he cannot claim a benefit of increments notionally
earned during the period when he was not on duty during
the period when he was out of service. It would be
incongruous to suggest that an employee, having been
held guilty and remained absent from duty for a long time,
G continues to earn increments though there is no payment
of wages for the period of absence."
16. In A.P. SRTC & Anr. vs. S. Narsagoud [(2003) 2 SCC
212], this Court held:
H "9. We find merit in the submission so made. There is a
V.V.G. REDDY v. APSRTC, NIZAMABAD REGION & ANR. 229
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
difference between an order of reinstatement A
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 B
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 c
unauthorised absence in the absence of a specific
direction in that regard and merely because he has been
directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in
service."
17. In Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma (supra). this D
Court upon referring to Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules
framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, held as under:
"11. In our view. this contention is wholly misconceived.
Rule 54, as amended in 1953, stands as follows : E
"54.(1) When a Government servant who has been
dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the
authority competent to order the reinstatement shall
consider and make a specific order-
F
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to
tlie Government servant for the period of his absence from
duty and
(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated G
as a period spent on duty.
(2) Where such competent authority holds that the
Government servant has been fully exonerated or. in the
case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the
Government servant shall be given the full pay to which he H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed,
removed or suspended, as the case may be together with
any allowances of which he was in receipt prior to his
dismissal, removal or suspension.
(3) In other cases, the Government servant shall be
B
given such proportion of such pay and allowances as such
competent authority may prescribe.
Provided that the payment of allowances under
clauses (2) and (3) shall be subject to all other conditions
c under which such allowances are admissible.
(4) In a case falling under clause (2) the period of
· absence from duty shall be treated as the period spent on
duty for all purposes.
D (5) In a case falling under clause (3) the period of
absence from duty shall not be treated as period spent on
duty unless such competent authority specifically directs
that it shall be so treated for any specified purposes."
E This rule has no application to cases like the present in
which the dismissal of a public servant is declared invalid
by a civil court and he is reinstated. This rule, undoubtedly
enables the State Government to fix the pay of a public
servant whose dismissal is set aside in a departmental
F appeal. But in this case the order of dismissal was
declared invalid in a civil suit. The effect of the decree of
the civil suit was that the appellant was never to be deemed
to have been lawfully dismissed from service and the order
of reinstatement was superfluous, The effect of the
G adjudication of the civil court is to declare that the appellant
had been wrongfully prevented from attending to his duties
as a public servant. It would not in such a contingency be
open to the authority to deprive the public servant of the
remuneration which he would have earned had he been
permitted to work."
H
V.V.G. REDDY v. APSRTC, NIZAMABAD REGION & ANR. 231
[S.S. SINHA, J.]
The said decision, in our opinion, has no application to the A
fact situation obtaining in the present case.
18. Appellant has not been directed to be reinstated in
service by reason of an Award holding that the order of
termination was wholly illegal and, thus, void ab initio. On what B
premise, parties entered into a compromise is not known. It is
possible to hold that findings of the Enquiry Officer which might
have been accepted by the disciplinary authority holding him
guilty of misconduct had not been set aside; the Management
might have thought that denial of back wages and attendant
benefits would be sufficient punishment. If that be so, appellant C
being not in service during the period in question, namely,
1.10.1983 to 15.2.1989, in our opinion, would not be entitled
to increment.
19. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is D
dismissed. No costs.
R.P. Appeal dismissed .
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Labour law"Sign in to search