IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of pursuing the appropriate legal remedy, Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for determining the amount payable to an employee, and the limitations of an executing court in going beyond the decree in execution proceedings.

JUDGMENT:

(Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.)

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28690 of 2016.

2. Heard Sri A. Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the appellant and Sri A.G. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-workman.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(1) The 1st respondent was working as a Cleaner in APSRTC, Medak. While so, on 06.08.1981, he was directed to drive a bus bearing No.AAZ-1560 to attend the relief work of another bus which failed en-route. The 1st respondent drove the bus bearing No.AAZ-1560 to the outer gate, where the Security Guard found five pipes meant for supporting the roof, kept in the Chassis of the bus. The Security Guard reported the matter to the head Security Guard, and consequently, a report was prepared and forwarded to the Depot Manager for necessary action. Based on the said report, a charge sheet was issued to the 1st respondent. A domestic enquiry was conducted and basing on the report, the 1st respondent was removed from service.

(2) Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed I.D.No.93 of 1992 (Old No.764 of 1987), and the same was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.1993 holding that the charge levelled against the 1st respondent was not proved and accordingly, the order of removal was set aside. Consequently, the appellant was directed to reinstate the 1st respondent into service without a break in service, but without back wages. Challenging the denial of back wages, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.18518 of 1995. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition vide order dated 19.09.2006 by observing that the Labour Court failed to give any reasons for denying the 1st respondent’s back wages when he was cleared from the alleged delinquency. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants therein preferred W.A.No.22 of 2007 before the Division Bench of this Court, which upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 18.12.2014.

(3) Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.14 of 2006 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, seeking payment of an amount of Rs.2,01,737.30ps., alleging that as per Regulation 21(2)(a) and (c) of the APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1967, whenever an employee is fully exonerated, the employee is entitled to full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been removed; and the period of absence from duty shall, for all purposes, be treated as a period spent on duty, and accordingly sought for payment of the enhanced wages consequent to revision of pay scales.

(4) The Labour Court vide order dated 15.06.2016 allowed the E.P. with the following observations:

"...The calculation made by the respondent shows that the back wages of the petitioner was calculated basing on the last pay drawn by the petitioner but they have not calculated according to the Revision of Pay Scales in the years 1980, 1985, 1989 and 1993. It is to be noted that for every four years there is Revision of Pay Scales but the same was not applied to the petitioner which is erroneous. When the back wages was ordered by reinstating him into service, the petitioner is entitled for back wages as if he was in service. Therefore, the calculation memo filed by the petitioner is correct and the calculation memo filed by the respondent is not correct.

In view of the above discussion, the respondent has to pay an amount of Rs.2,01,737.30 ps., out of which the respondent has to deposit an amount of Rs.31,556/- to the P.F. trust towards employee and employer contributions. The respondent has not paid the said amount therefore; the petitioner is entitled to attach the property as referred in the schedule.

In the result, the petitioner is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.2,01,737.30 ps., out of which respondent has to contribute Rs.31,556/- towards P.F. Account for the contribution of employee and employer and the remaining amount of Rs.1,70,181.30 ps., has to be paid to th