IMPORTANT POINT
Continuity of service does not automatically entitle an employee to time-scale benefits unless actual service conditions are fulfilled as per the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.Reena Kamani waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent.

2. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Jamnagar dated 18.08.2021 in Reference (IT) No.16 of 2017, whereby learned Tribunal has granted benefit of time-scale to the present respondent – workman.

3. Gist of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a driver-cum-conductor with the respondent by an order dated 28.07.2010. He resumed his duty on 13.07.2010 and as per the terms of the appointment’s order, he was paid fixed salary for the first 5 years of service. He was terminated from the service on the ground of misconduct by an order dated 10.06.2011, therefore, reference came to be filed before learned Labour Court, Jamnagar being Reference (LCJ) No.19 of 2013 praying to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits and back wages. Learned Labour Court, after hearing to the parties, comes to the conclusion that without initiating the disciplinary action, order of termination was passed which is dehors the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, award was passed directing the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman without back wages and with continuity of service. The above order was passed on 08.01.2015 which was complied by the present petitioner and he was reinstated to the service on 27.04.2015. On reinstating the respondent, his basic pay scale was revised from 3500/- to 8800/- and he was ordered to entitle for all terminal benefits in view of award passed by learned Labour Court with regard to the continuity of the service. The second reference was filed by the workman being Reference No. I.T. No.16 of 2017 claiming the benefit of time-scale on completion of 5 years service, as per the condition of appointment order, from 31.07.2015 learned Labour Court has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent directing the present petitioner – corporation to grant the benefit of time-scale from 31.07.2015 i.e. on completion of 5 years service from his original appointment i.e. on 30.07.2010. The said award is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Reena Kamani for the respondent.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu has submitted that there is a settlement which was arrived between the parties and as per Clause 20 of the Settlement, if the post is available on completion of 5 years, he can be granted benefit of time-scale. As per the appointment order Clause 5, he was appointed on ad-hoc basis for first 5 years on fix pay scale, the benefit of time-scale was espose from the settlement which was signed by recognized Union and therefore, the respondent-workman cannot claim the benefit of time-scale as an inherited right from the date of appointment. Learned advocate Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu submits that in view of the directions given by learned Labour Court granting the benefit of continuity of service, revise pay fixation was made and he was paid Rs.8,800/-. Learned advocate Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu submits that the continuity of services benefit which was given by learned Labour Court would be given notional effects to get the terminal benefits like pension, gratuity etc.

5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu further submits that as per the Circular dated 19.02.2015, the actual services can only be considered according to the benefit of time-scale. Learned advocate Mr. Hamesh C. Naidu has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) V/s. Abdul Kareem and submitted that in absence of relief of i.e. consequential benefits, the workman would be entitled for the increments notionally during the period, when he was on duty or during the period, when he was out of service. Learned advocate Mr. Hamesh C. Naid