Telangana High Court
WP/27612/2008 of M.S.Mahaboob Ali Vs The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. on 31 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 27612 of 2008 Between: M.S.Mahaboob Ali S/o. Lal Mohammed Nagarkurnool Bus Depot,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAWRIT PETITION NO : 27612 of 2008
Between:
M.S.Mahaboob Ali S/o. Lal Mohammed Nagarkurnool Bus Depot, Mahabubnagar District, A.P.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Mahabubnagar Region, atMahabubnagar, A.P.
2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Nagarkurnool Bus Depot,Mahabubnagar District, A.P.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents innot paying the gratuity amount to the petitioner for his out of employmentperiod (i.e., 27.12.1981 to 11.06.1986) in concerned with his removal asillegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of this Hon'ble Courtand consequently direct the respondents to pay the gratuity with interestfor the said period and pass.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
Page 1 of 3
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a mandamus todeclare the action of the respondent in not paying him the gratuity amountfor his out of employment period viz., from 27.12.1981 to 11.6.1986 asarbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to pay thesaid amount forthwith.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedstanding counsel for the respondent Corporation and at their request thewrit petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondentCorporation on 26.2.1975. While he was working as conductor inWanaparthy Bus depot, he was removed from service on certain cash andticket irregularities. He challenged the same before the AdditionalIndustrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The LabourCourt by its award in ID No.36 of 1985 dated 2.1.1986 directed hisreinstatement into service with continuity of service and all attendantbenefits. Thereafter, he was reinstated and subsequently retired fromservice on 31.5.2008 as TI-III after attaining superannuation. Thegrievance of the petitioner is that even though the Labour Court hasawarded continuity of service, the respondents are not paying him thegratuity for the period he was out of employment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitionerwas reinstated into service with continuity of service and attendantbenefits, he cannot be denied the retirement benefits for the period duringwhich he was out of service and extension of the said benefit does notdepend upon the actual physical service in the corporation. The learnedcounsel further submits that the issue involved in this writ petition issquarely covered by the decision of this Court reported in M.Rama Rao v.
Assistant Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad[[1]]wherein this Court held that in a case where under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal of an employeeand directed that the employee be reinstated into service with continuity ofservice, the management could not deny the payment of gratuity to theemployee on his retirement for the period during which he was out ofemployment as a result of the order of removal.
Page 2 of 3
Conclusion
In the light of the judgment of this Court referred above and in viewof the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties thatthe above said judgment governs the case, the writ petition is allowed interms thereof and the respondents are directed to extend the monetarybenefits viz., gratuity etc., to the petitioner for the period during which hewas out of service viz., from 27.12.1981 to 11.6.1986.
DT.31.12.2008
msv
N.V.RAMANA,J
[1]1998(3) ALD 76
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…