HANIFBHAI BAPUBHAI DASADIA Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.T.R.Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.M.J.Shelat for Mr.A.M. Dagali, learned advocate for respondent - Corporation.

(2.) The grievance of the present petitioner is that he has been reinstated in pursuance of the settlement arrived at between the parties in Reference No.363 / 1990 before the labour court, Bhavnagar on 7/05/2000. Accordingly, the petitioner has been reinstated in service vide order dated 26/07/2000 on same post on which he was working but pay scale granted to the petitioner workman as if to the fresh employee against the terms of the settlement and it was not an intention of the settlement. The settlement is arrived at to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with continuity of service without increments. The petitioner has not been granted continuity of service and no notional incremental benefit is granted and thereby proper pay fixation is not granted in case of the petitioner. However, it is also contended by Mr.Mishra that in similar case and in similarly settlement, similarly situated employee was granted correct fixation and the petitioner is discriminated by misinterpretation which has given rise to filing of this petition. Settlement recorded by the labour court on 7/05/2000 is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-B pg.17 of this petition. In pursuance of the said settlement, the Divisional Controller, Bhavnagar has issued office order dated 14/02/2001, wherein the petitioner has been reinstated with continuity of service and his pay fixation has been carried out in pursuance of the settlement dated 21st December, 1989 and nd necessary increment has been given with effect from 1st August, 1992 and 1/08/1997. But his fixation for interim period for which he remained out of job, no notional increment has been included in the fixation and therefore, pay fixation of the petitioner which has been carried out by the respondent Corporation is not according to the Service Rules of the Corporation. Learned advocate Mr.T.R.Mishra on behalf of the petitioner workman has relied on decision rendered by Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of T. Narayana v. Managing Director, APSRTC Hyderabad and others reported in 1998 II CLR 982 and also relied on other decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad and other v. M. Sankarraiah reported in 1999 II CLR 597 and P. Srinivas vs. Industrial Turbinal cum Labour Court, Warangal and others reported in 2000 0 LLR 814.

(3.) Relying on the aforesaid decisions, learned advocate Mr.T.R.Mishra has submitted that continuity of service has been granted in the settlement while giving reinstatement to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is entitled in pay fixation the notional increments of interim period during he remained out of job. However, it is case of the petitioner that said benefit of notional increment has not been given by the respondent to the petitioner, which has given rise to this petition.