In Narsa Goud MANU/SC/0027/2003 : (2003) 2 SCC 212 (supra), the issue for consideration was whether a workman can claim to draw increments for the period of out of employment when Labour Court only directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. Supreme Court observed as under:
"9. We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. In our opinion, the employee after having been held guilty of unauthorised absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of unauthorised absence in the absence of a specific direction in that regard and merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service."
When the termination order is superseded by a less severe punishment, the said punishment should come into effect from the date of original order of termination. As held by Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase MANU/SC/0942/2013 : (2013) 10 SCC 324 (supra) 'reinstatement' would mean putting the workman back to the stage when he was terminated. As a consequence to setting aside the order of removal, the petitioner gets back to his position as prevailing on the date of his removal. On such reinstatement, the punishment of removal gets substituted by the punishment of withholding of three annual increments for three years with cumulative effect The annual increments due to the petitioner in the year 2000, 2001 and 2002 stands deferred in view of the Award passed by the Labour Court and after 2002, petitioner is entitled to annual increment after rendering one year satisfactory service. The action of Respondent Corporation in applying the punishment of deferment of annual increments only from the year 2003 is erroneous. It would amount to imposing punishment of withholding six annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. When Labour court prescribed particular punishment to be imposed, no higher punishment can be imposed. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to apply the punishment of withholding of three annual increments for three years with cumulative effect from the date when he was removed from service. Petitioner is entitled to annual increment only after rendering one year satisfactory service after he was reinstated.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
Writ Petition No. 9017 of 2011
Decided On: 27.09.2016
B.S. Raju Vs. APSRTC and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P. Naveen Rao, J.
