Telangana High Court
WP/22420/2004 of S. K. Sayeed, Vs The Regional Manager, on 28 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 22420 of 2004 Between: S. K. Sayeed, S/o. S.K. Madar, APSRTC, Office of the Divisional
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 22420 of 2004
Between:
S. K. Sayeed, S/o. S.K. Madar,APSRTC, Office of the Divisional Manager, Charminar Division, Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, JBS, Picket,Secunderabad.
2 The Divisional Manager, Charminar Division, Koti Bus Terminus,Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamusdeclaring that the action of the respondents in not paying and gratuity amount to thepetitioner for the out of employment period ie from 12/12/1981 to 28/11/1987 (ie fromthe date of removal to the date of reinstatement) as illegal, arbitrary, bad andcontrary to the judgment/award and consequently direct the respondents to pay thegratuity for the said period and pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD (S.C.FOR APSRTC)
The Court at the admission stage made the following :
The Hon’ble Sri Justice
K.C. Bhanu
W.P. No. 22420 of 2004
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
The present writ petition is filed challenging the action ofthe respondents in not paying the gratuity amount to the petitioner forthe out of employment period i.e. from 12.12.2981 to 28.11.1987 (i.e.from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement).
It is the case of the petitioner that he was removed fromservice on 21.12.1981. When he challenged the order of removal, theAdditional Labour Court, Hyderabad by its order dated 6.7.1987 inI.D. No. 166 of 1984 directed the respondent-Corporation forreinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of servicebut without backwages and attendant benefits. After hisreinstatement, he was promoted as Controller and thereafter as T.I. –III. He retired from service on 30.1.2004. The grievance of thepetitioner is that the respondents did not pay the gratuity for theperiod from 12.10.1981 to 28.11.1987 i.e. from the date of hisremoval to his reinstatement into service. According to him, as theLabour Court ordered for continuity of service, he has to be deemedas in service and therefore he is entitled for payment of gratuity.Hence the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that whenthe petitioner was reinstated into employment with continuity ofservice, he is entitled for gratuity, and for that purpose he placedreliance on decisions of this court in M. Rama Rao v. Asst. TrafficManager, APSRTC[1]and W.P. 23200 of 2003 dated 16.12.2003.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentscontended that the attendant benefits have not been ordered by theTribunal and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for gratuity.Continuity of service is only for the purpose of future promotions and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for gratuity for the out ofemployment period.
Arguments
The facts are in narrow compass. The petitioner wasremoved from service on 21.12.1981. The Addl. Labour Court in I.D.No. 166 of 1984 dated 6.7.1987 set aside the removal order andordered reinstatement of the petitioner with immediate effect butwithout any backwages and attendant benefits but with continuity ofservice only. In W.P. 232200 of 2003 dated 16.12.2003, this Courtplaced reliance on the decision cited (1) supra and allowed the writpetition. In the decision cited (1) supra, it is held that since theIndustrial Court has granted to the petitioner the continuity of service,it should be held that for all practical purposes the petitioner shouldbe deemed to have been in continuous service all through. In thatcase, the Labour Court ordered for reinstatement with continuity ofservice and all other benefits except backwages. In this case also,the Industrial Tribunal ordered for reinstatement with continuity ofservice only. When the continuity of service is ordered, this court heldthat for all practical purposes the petitioner should be deemed tohave been in continuous service all through.
Following the said judgments, the writ petition has to beallowed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed directing therespondents to pay the gratuity amount to the petitioner for the out ofemployment period i.e. from 12.12.1981 to 28.9.1987 within a periodof three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
__________________
K.C. Bhanu, J.
Date: --12—2004.
MVB.
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
To
1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, JBS, Picket,Secunderabad.2 The Divisional Manager, Charminar Division, Koti Bus Terminus,Hyderabad.
3. 2CD copies