Shorn of extraneous particulars, the facts in brief are that the respondent, a conductor in the petitioner Corporation, initially faced disciplinary proceedings on the ground of being unauthorisedly absent from 23.10.1998 to 02.12.1998. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent, the petitioner Corporation went ahead with the departmental enquiry, which eventually resulted in the removal of the respondent through an order dated 05.05.1999 passed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved thereby, though the respondent preferred an intra-departmental appeal, it was also dismissed on 30.10.2002. Eventually, when the respondent further took the matter in revision, the revisional authority, through its order dated 22.02.2003, took a sympathetic view and ordered fresh appointment. Aggrieved still, the respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.129 of 2004 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur. The record reveals that the said I.D. was eventually allowed by the Labour Court through an award dated 15.12.2006. On appreciation of the merits of the matter through an award dated 15.12.2006, the Labour Court ordered continuity of service. Ventilating a grievance that though continuity of service was ordered, the benefit of notional increments had not been provided to the respondent, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7088 of 2009. This Court through its order dated 06.04.2009 directed the petitioner Corporation to consider the representation of the respondent for providing notional increments. At the bar, it has been stated that on consideration, the petitioner Corporation rejected the request of the respondent for notional increments.
