V SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three cases raise the same question for consideration. We therefore heard them together and are disposing them of by mis common judgment.

(2.) The question which arises for consideration relates to entitlement of employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation who were suspended or removed from service consequent on conviction by a criminal court and who were reinstated as a result of acquittal in appeal, for wages during the period when they were kept out of service. There are minor variation of facts in the three cases. We will refer to them so as to comprehend the scope of the controversy arising in these cases.

(3.) Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11136/85 was arrested by the police of Narsaraopet on 6-7-69. He was placed under suspension. He was an accused in Sessions Case No. 32/70 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. By order dt. 26-8-71, the 2nd respondent dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 22-8-70. Even though the Sessions Judge found him guilty and this court affirmed that conviction with enhanced punishment, the Supreme Court of India allowed his appeal and acquitted him by judgment dated 19-12-1979. The 2nd respondent reinstated the petitioner in service on 20-3-1980. By a further order dt. 9-6-1980, the 2nd respondent ordered that the petitioner should be paid Rs. 250/-which was the minium in the scale of salary applicable to Mechanic, Grade-II of the Corporation at that time. The order did not make any mention about the pay and allowances during the period of suspension till he was reinstated in service. Petitioner made representations. Since they did not evoke any response, the trade union to which he belonged, raised an Industrial Dispute which the Government referred for adjudication to the 1st respondent That dispute was numbered as I.D.No.81 /81. In its award dt.12-12-1984, the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to restore the petitioner to his original seniority and rank above his juniors. The 1st respondent also ordered that he would be entitled to the same scale of pay which he would have drawn, had he not been out of service. But there was no direction relating to pay and allowances for the above period. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 11136/85 assailing the award of the Tribunal in so far as denial of pay and allowances to him for the period he was kept out of employment are concerned. According to him he was kept under suspension under clause 18 (1) (b) of the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1967('Regulations' for short) and that or. his reinstatement he was entitled for pay and allowances which he would have drawn in terms of clause 21 of the Regulations, had he not been suspended and subsequently removed from service. He relied on the decision of the full bench of this court reported in The District Mnnager, APSRTC, Bhimavaram vs. Labour Court.Guntur. Petitioner therefore sought payment of full backwages from 6-7-69 the date of suspension till 29-3-1980 the date of his reinstatement, in modification of the award dt.12-12-1984.