ORDER :

1. A.P.S.R.T.C. now presently T.S.R.T.C. filed this writ petition seeking writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 06.04.2006 made in M.P. No. 52 of 2001 on the file of the Labour Court-I, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, directing the petitioner Corporation to compute the salary of respondent No. 1 by allowing notional increments for the period from 14.05.1994 to 02.04.2022 and make payment accordingly and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled principles of law.

2. Heard Miss. Dornala Sai Mahatha, learned counsel, representing, Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation, as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 2. In spite of service of notice, respondent No. 1 has not chosen to enter his appearance.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1, while working as Conductor in the petitioner Corporation, was removed from the services with effect from 14.05.1994 on the ground that he committed cash and ticket irregularities. Aggrieved by the said removal order, respondent No. 1 filed I.D. No. 85 of 1999 before the Industrial Tribunal-II at Hyderabad invoking the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The Industrial Tribunal after considering the contentions of the respective parties, documentary evidence i.e. Exs.M.1 to M.18 on record has modified the punishment holding that respondent No. 1-workman is liable for punishment of postponement of one annual increment for the period of one year and further directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate respondent No. 1 into service with continuity, but without back wages. Pursuant to the said award dated 20.01.2000, respondent No. 1 was reinstated into service on 01.04.2000.

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 1 filed M.P. No. 52 of 2001 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Act, seeking a direction directing the petitioner Corporation for computation of certain monetary benefits as per the Award in I.D. No. 85 of 1999. In the said petition, the petitioner Corporation filed detailed counter denying the claim made by respondent No. 1. She further submits that the Labour Court without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner passed the impugned order on 06.04.2006 directing the petitioner Corporation to compute the salary of respondent No. 1 by allowing the notional increment for the period from 14.05.1994 to 02.04.2000 and the same is contrary to the Award passed in I.D. No. 85 of 1999 dated 20.01.2000 and without jurisdiction and also contrary to the law.

3.2 In support of her contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. and Another vs. S. Narsagoud, (2003) 2 SCC 212 and A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others vs. Abdul Kareem, (2005) 6 SCC 36.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the Industrial Tribunal after considering the contentions of the respective parties and also material evidence on record rightly passed the impugned order by invoking the provisions of Section 33(C)(2) of the Act, and the same is in accordance with law.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, the following points would arise for consideration:

(1) Whether the application filed by respondent No. 1 seeking computation of monetary benefits, especially notional increments from 14.05.1994 to 02.04.2000 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act is maintainable, in the absence of specific direction in the Award dated 20.01.2000 in I.D. No. 85 of 1999?

(2) Whether the award of the Labour Court for reinstatement without back wages would imply continuity of service and whether notional increments are to be given to the employee, for the period while he was not in s