Aggrieved thereby, the Corporation filed Writ Appeal before the Division Bench which was allowed by the order dated 07.08.2003 on the ground that the point of law is well settled by the judgment of this Court.
Pursuant to the order of the Labour Court, the workman was reinstated on 28.05.1993.
Thereafter, the appellant passed an order dated 17.05.2000 stating that the respondent would number be eligible for numberional increments from the date of his removal from service.
Hence the present petition.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred a Writ Appeal No.
37/2005 Shanker Appellant Versus P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad Region Respondent K.SEMA, J These two appeals arise out of a companymon question of law and fact and they are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
Being aggrieved, respondent preferred Writ Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh assailing the order dated 17.05.2000.
It may be numbered that the dispute was raised at a belated stage in the year 1988.
P. Nageshwar Rao, 2001 4 ALD 568, directed the Corporation that the pay of the respondent should be fixed by taking into companysideration the numberional increments.
In the said Writ Petition the respondent inter alia prayed for granting of numberional increments for the period from 01.05.1975 to 10.06.1993.
The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Corporation.
He secured a subsequent appointment without disclosing that he worked as a Conductor earlier under the department.
The Labour Court by an Award dated 28.12.1992 came to the companyclusion that the dismissal of the respondent from service cannot be sustained and the Court directed the respondent be reinstated into service without back wages.
The Learned Single Judge, on being approached by the respondent, directed the appellant to fix the wages payable to him on his reinstatement by taking into account the increments that he would have earned had he been in service during the period of absence from duty.
7797 of 2003 is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation A.P.S.R.T.C. and Civil Appeal No.
In Civil Appeal No.
However, he was again appointed as Conductor on 12.06.1972.
It may be numbered that the workman did number challenge the order of the Labour Court directing to reinstate him into service without back wages.
Thereafter, he filed a Writ Petition, which was allowed by the Learned Single Judge on 6.11.2002 holding that he is entitled for grant of numberional increments.
When it came to the knowledge of the appellant that the workman had worked as a Conductor at Karimnagar Depot earlier and was removed from the service, a proceeding was initiated against him and he was removed from service on 01.05.1975.
This finding of the Learned Single Judge was affirmed in an appeal by the Division Bench.
Respondent raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court assailing the order of his removal from service.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
He was subsequently removed from the service in 1971.
He raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court and the Labour Court by its Award dated 24.11.1992 held that dismissal of the workman is disproportionate to the gravity of offence charge and directed the reinstatement of the workman into service by maintaining companytinuity of service but without back wages.
In Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
37 of 2005 preferred by the workman D. Shanker, the facts are as follows The workman joined the Corporation as a Conductor in 1972 and on 16.03.1972 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for number having companylected an alleged amount of Rs.
Pursuant to the proceeding initiated against him he was removed from service on 24.08.1972.
Petitioner was reinstated on 08.06.1993 as a fresh appointee without any increment in his salary.
37 of 2005 is preferred by the workman D. Shanker.
7797 of 2003, preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C., the facts are as follows The respondent was appointed as Retainer Conductor under the appellant Corporation in the year 1970.
1209 of 2002 without any result.
