Allowed

K.Subba Rao, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Telangana HC14 Jul 2006WP/14416/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, filed by an employee of APSRTC, sought a declaration that the respondents' refusal to pay gratuity for the period between his illegal removal and judicial reinstatement was unlawful. The Single Judge held that since the Labour Court set aside the removal order and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, the employer was legally obligated to pay gratuity for that inte

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to compute the gratuity payable to the petitioner including the out-of-service period and pay the balance; no costs to the petitioner.

K.Subba Rao, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶2

Writ Petition No.14416 of 2006

¶3

Dated:1 4 th July, 2006

Between:

K.Subba Rao.

…..PETITIONER

AND The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur Region, Guntur District & another.

¶8

….RESPONDENTS

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶10

W.P.No.14416 of 2006

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the gratuity amount for the out of service period i.e., from the date of removal to till the date of reinstatement (i.e., 31-8-1989 to 30-9-2001) as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pay the difference of gratuity amount for the above said period.

¶13

The petitioner joined the service of the respondents-APSRTC as Conductor on 10-3-1969. While working as such, he was removed from service by orders dated 31-8-1989. Assailing the said order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 10 of 1992, and the Labour Court, vide award dated 25-6-2001, allowed the I.D., set aside the order of removal and directed the respondents to reinstate him with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without backwages. Pursuant to the said award, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 30.9.2001, and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30-9-2001.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of his retirement, the respondents did not pay him gratuity for the period from 31-8-1989 to 30-9-2001 i.e., from the date of passing of order of removal till the date of his reinstatement into service by virtue of the award. It is the case of the petitioner that he made representation to the 2^nd respondent requesting to pay gratuity for the above-said period in vain. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted to by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondentsAPSRTC that the subject-matter of this writ petition is squarely

¶17

covered by a judgment of a learned single Judge of this court in

¶18

M. Rama Rao v. Asst. Traffic Manager, APSRTC^[1] , wherein it was held that when once the Labour Court set asides the order of removal and directs reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service, the respondents-APSRTC cannot deny payment of gratuity to the petitioner for the period for which he was out of service as a result of the order of removal.

¶19

Inasmuch as, the Labour Court, vide its award dated 25-6-2001 passed in I.D. No. 10 of 1992, while setting aside the order of removal dated 31-8-1989 passed against the petitioner, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and without backwages, the petitioner is entitled to be paid gratuity for the period he remained out of employment from 31-8-1989 to 30-9-2001, i.e. from the date of removal order till the date of his reinstatement into service, and the action of the respondents in denying gratuity to the petitioner for the aforesaid period, is illegal and arbitrary.

¶20

Since the facts of this case, are squarely covered by the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in M. Rama Rao v. Asst. Traffic Manager, APSRTC, following the said judgment, and for the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition has to be allowed, and it is accordingly allowed in terms thereof. The respondents shall compute the gratuity payable to the petitioner taking into account the out of employment period i.e. from 31-8-1989, on which day order of removal was passed to 30-9-2001, on which day, he was reinstated into service by virtue of the award of the Labour Court, and after computing, pay the balance gratuity to the petitioner. No costs.

¶21

_________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶22

Dated 14^th July, 2006. Grk

¶23

[1] 1998 (3) ALD 76

K.Subba Rao, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Subba Rao, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.G.K.Rao, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Gadwal Bus Depot

V.R. Reddy Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

E.N. Goud Vs The Regional Manager (Hcr)

J.K. Rao Conductor, E-93735, S/o Sri Ramulu Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc., Krishna Region

Adapa Rama Rao Vs The Personnel Officer, East Godavari Region

Md. Hafeez, Vs The Depot Manager