GENERAL MANAGER Vs. R.S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.1 herein was removed from service after domestic enquiry by the petitioner BALCO which he challenged by filing application under Section 31 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the application and granted reinstatement along with back- wages that was led to filing of appeal by the employer BALCO before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court allowed the appeal of the employer in part holding that the order of reinstatement to be maintained but without back-wages and dismissed the appeal filed by the employee. Accordingly, the employee was reinstated on 6-10-2000. Thereafter, on 27-8-2001, the employee filed application for granting back-wages particularly notional benefits from 1992 to 31-7-2001 amounting to Rs. 4,24,550/-. The Labour Court allowed the application 30-4-2002 holding that he is entitled for actual increment from 18-8-1994 till 6-10-2000 against which the petitioner employer preferred appeal before the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court held by the impugned order that the respondent employee will not be entitled to get conveyance allowance, canteen allowance, incentive allowance, LTC and interest for the period from 18-8-1998 to 6-10-2000. Questioning that order of the Industrial Court, the present writ petition has been preferred by the employer BALCO and similar contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondent employee having been reinstated without back-wages is not entitled for actual increment on the said amount.

(2.) Mr. N.K. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner employer, submits that once the respondent employee has been reinstated without back-wages and there is no specific direction that the employee would be entitled for all consequential benefits, the employee is neither entitled for notional increment during the date of removal till reinstatement nor he is entitled for actual increment. He placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of A.P. SRTC and another v. S. Narsagoud, (2003) 2 SCC 212 and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) and others v. Abdul Kareem, 2005 AIR SCW 3809.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner employer and perused the order impugned as also the other material / documents available on record with utmost circumspection.