Mohd. ShareefuddIn Vs. Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Secunderabad City Region and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - , from 18-5-1973 to 8-2-1978) concerned with his removal as illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of this court and consequently direct the respondents to pay the gratuity with interest for the said period and pass such other suitable orders.orderp.s. narayana, j.1. the matter is coming up for admission.2. sri k. madhava reddy, learned standing counsel takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. sri p. venkateswar rao, learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that in the light of the view expressed in m. rama rao v. asst. traffic manager, apsrtc, hyderabad and anr. : 1998 (2) alt 534 : 1998 (3) ald 76 and also mohd. hameeduddin v. regional manager, apsrtc, mahaboobnagar region at mahaboobnagar, a.p. and anr. in w.p. no. 12380 of 2009 the relief prayed for in the present writ petition is to be granted. sri k. madhava reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondents would submit that it is true that in similar matters, such relief had been granted.3. the writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the gratuity amount to the petitioner for his out of employment period (i.e., from 18-5-1973 to 8-2-1978) concerned with his removal as illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of this court and consequently direct the respondents to pay the gratuity with interest for the said period and pass such other suitable orders.4. it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as conductor in the year 1968 in the respondent-corporation and while the petitioner was working in apsrtc, dilsukhnagar bus depot, the petitioner was removed from service on 18-5-1973, on the charge of cash and ticket irregularity. being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was rejected by the appellate authority. hence, the petitioner raised i.d. no. 135 of 1974 before the labour court, hyderabad and the said court passed an award on 01-06-1977 as follows:in the result an award is passed finding that the district manager, andhra pradesh state road transport corporation, dilsukhnagar bus depot is not justified in removing sri mohd. shareefuddin, conductor, e-34312 from service and that the said mohd. shareefuddin is therefore, entitled to be reinstated into service without backwages. he shall however be entitled to all other attendant benefits, such as increments and continuity of service.it is also stated that the said award was published in g.o.ms. no. 772/le&te; lab.i) deptt. dated 18-7-1977. thereafter, the petitioner had been reinstated into service in apsrtc, mushirabad on 08-02-1978. subsequent thereto on 13-7-1985, the petitioner was promoted as 'controller' and again on 7.5.1998 the petitioner was promoted as 'depot clerk' and finally promoted as 'dy. superintendent/ti-ii in the year 2002 and the petitioner was retired from service on 30-6-2002. it is further stated that it is the grievance of the petitioner that after his retirement, the respondents are not paying the gratuity from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement i.e., from 18-5-1973 to 8-2-1978, it is clarified by the labour court in its award, dated 01-6-1977 to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to the continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, the said award became final. but despite the same, the respondents are not inclined to pay the gratuity amount for the period from 18-5-1973 to 8-2-1978. in such circumstances, being left with no other option, the writ petitioner approached this court.5. in w.p. no. 12380 of 2009 by order dated 25-6-2009, this court made the following order:apparently, the petitioner is out of service from 01-07-1982 to 31-12-1986 i.e., the date of reinstatement, pursuant to the award dated 16-07-1986. when once the award speaks that he shall be reinstated into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits for all purposes, it shall be deemed that he is in service during the said period also. accordingly, this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that withholding or non-payment of gratuity etc., for the said period is illegal. therefore, the respondents are hereby directed to pay all the attendant benefits (if not already paid) and gratuity for the period i.e., 01-07-1982 to 31-12-1986. accordingly, this writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission itself. there shall be no order as to costs.6. further reliance was placed on m. rama rao v. asst. traffic manager, apsrtc, hyderabad and anr. (supra), wherein the learned judge of this court held that where the labour court set aside the order of removal and directed the petitioner to be reinstated with continuity of service, the management cannot deny payment of gratuity to the petitioner on his retirement for the period for which, he was out of employment as a result of the order of removal/termination.7. in the light of the decision referred to above, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of payment of gratuity for the relevant period i.e., the period out of employment from 18-5-1973 to 08-02-1978. however, the further relief with interest had been prayed for, this court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances, the interest need not be paid and accordingly, the said relief was negatived. but, however, the writ petition is hereby allowed declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the gratuity amount to the petitioner for the period when he was out of employment i.e., from 18-5-1973 to 08-02-1978 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and with a further direction to pay the said amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.8. accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

P.S. Narayana, J.

1. The matter is coming up for admission.

2. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Sri P. Venkateswar Rao, learned Counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that in the light of the view expressed in M. Rama Rao v. Asst. Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad and Anr. : 1998 (2) ALT 534 : 1998 (3) ALD 76 and also Mohd. Hameeduddin v. Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar Region at Mahaboobnagar, A.P. and Anr. in W.P. No. 12380 of 2009 the relief prayed for in the present writ petition is to be granted. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents would submit that it is true that in similar matters, such relief had been granted.

3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the gratuity amount to the petitioner for his out of employment period (i.e., from 18-5-1973 to 8-2-1978) concerned with his removal as illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of this Court and consequently direct the respondents to pay the gratuity with interest for the said period and pass such other suitable orders.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the year 1968 in the respondent-Corporation and while the petitioner was working in APSRTC, Dilsukhnagar Bus Depot, the petitioner was removed from service on 18-5-1973, on the charge of cash and ticket irregularity. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was rejected by the appellate authority. Hence, the petitioner raised I.D. No. 135 of 1974 before the Labour Court, Hyderabad and the said court passed an award on 01-06-1977 as follows:

In the result an award is passed finding that the District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Dilsukhnagar Bus Depot is not justified in removing Sri Mohd. Shareefuddin, Conductor, E-34312 from service and that the said Mohd. Shareefuddin is therefore, entitled to be reinstated into service without backwages. He shall however be entitled to all other attendant benefits, such as increments and continuity of service.

It is also stated that the said award was published in G.O.Ms. No. 772/LE&TE; Lab.I) Deptt. Dated 18-7-1977. Thereafter, the petitioner had been reinstated into service in APSRTC, Mushirabad on 08-02-1978. Subsequent thereto on 13-7-1985, the petitioner was promoted as 'Controller' and again on 7.5.1998 the petitioner was promoted as 'Depot Clerk' and finally promoted as 'Dy. Superintendent/TI-II in the year 2002 and the petitioner was retired from service on 30-6-2002. It is further stated that it is the grievance of the petitioner that after his retirement, the respondents are not paying the gratuity from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement i.e., from 18-5-1973 to 8-2-1978, it is clarified by the Labour Court in its award, dated 01-6-1977 to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to the continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, the said award became final. But despite the same, the respondents are not inclined to pay the gratuity amount for the period from 18-5-1973 to 8-2-1978. In such circumstances, being left with no other option, the writ petitioner approached this Court.

5. In W.P. No. 12380 of 2009 by order dated 25-6-2009, this Court made the following order:

Apparently, the petitioner is out of service from 01-07-1982 to 31-12-1986 i.e., the date of reinstatement, pursuant to the Award dated 16-07-1986. When once the Award speaks that he shall be reinstated into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits for all purposes, it shall be deemed that he is in service during the said period also. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that withholding or non-payment of gratuity etc., for the said period is illegal. Therefore, the respondents are hereby directed to pay all the attendant benefits (if not already paid) and gratuity for the period i.e., 01-07-1982 to 31-12-1986. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission itself. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Further reliance was placed on M. Rama Rao v. Asst. Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad and Anr. (supra), wherein the learned Judge of this Court held that where the Labour Court set aside the order of removal and directed the petitioner to be reinstated with continuity of service, the management cannot deny payment of gratuity to the petitioner on his retirement for the period for which, he was out of employment as a result of the order of removal/termination.

7. In the light of the decision referred to above, there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of payment of gratuity for the relevant period i.e., the period out of employment from 18-5-1973 to 08-02-1978. However, the further relief with interest had been prayed for, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances, the interest need not be paid and accordingly, the said relief was negatived. But, however, the writ petition is hereby allowed declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the gratuity amount to the petitioner for the period when he was out of employment i.e., from 18-5-1973 to 08-02-1978 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and with a further direction to pay the said amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.