( 1 ) AS in both the cases common question of law is involved since both the writ petitioners are disposed by a common order.

( 2 ) THE Petitioners are challenging the circular issued by the APSRTC (for short Corporation) issuing No. LCI /402 (16)/ dated 6-1-1990 including the deductions of notional increment already awarded to the petitioners and for consequential fixation of pay taking into account the lost notional increment and for releasing the physical monetary benefits from the date of award became enforceable.

( 3 ) FOR proper appreciation of the facts, I will narrate the facts submitted in WP No. 11182/92. The petitioner was working as a conductor in the Corporation at Sircilla Depot and subsequently his services were terminated. Aggrieved by the said termination order the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute and the same was referred by the Government for adjudication in the following terms: 1. Whether the Depot Manager, Karimnagar is justified in removing Sri N. Raja Reddy, Ex-Conductor from service? 2. If not, to what relief he is entitled?the tribunal passed an award in JD No. 322/ 86 on 6-11-1987 directing the Respondent to reinstate the workman with continuity of service, but without back wages. In pursuance of the said directions, the petitioner was admitted into duty on 11-7-1988. Subsequently he was promoted as A. D. C. The petitioner submits that his pay was also fixed taking into account the notional increments, as he was directed to be reinstated into service. By the impugned circular dated 6-1-1990 instructions were issued that if notional increments were already released to the petitioner, the same are sought to be recovered as his pay is sought to be fixed in accordance with the said circularwhich has the effect of reducing the basic pay and also the allowances and other benefits. Therefore, the petitioner impugnes the Circular dated 6-1-1990.

( 4 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT was filed on behalf of the Respondent contending that the petitioner is not entitled for notional increments, as the award is only for reinstatement without back-wages. There is no specific relief in the award slating that he is entitled for continuity of service and other benefits. In the absence of such a relief, the petitioner is not entitled for notional increments.

( 5 ) IN the Memo issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation to the Accounts Officer concerned, it is mentioned that since the employee has been reinstated without back wages and there is no mention for the attendant benefits in the award, the last pay drawn by the employee on the date of removal should be fixed and his pay, on his retirement. It was further directed lhat if there any Revision of Pay Scales, the last pay drawn by the employee should be fixed at the appropriate stage in the revised scales without adding any notional increments. However, for the purpose of seniority and terminal benefits the interrugnum period shall be treated as continuous service.

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the Labour Court passed an award directing reinstatement of the petitioner. The word reinstatement has been interpreted in number of cases to mean that the workman is restored back to his position. But, however the Labour Court has not granted any backwages. It has therefore, to be construed that he is deemed to have been continued in service, but without any monetary benefits till the date of award became enforceable. The effect of award of re-instatement is that the dismissal of workman is no more in operation and that he is deemed to have been restored to his former position and status as if contract of employment originally entered into has been continuing. There is material difference between re-instatement and re-employment. In the former case the workman is deemedto be in service without interruption, while in the latter case, he forfeits his previous service and enters employment as a fresher. Therefore, the relief of re-instatement granted to th