- (1.) The respondent was a conductor, and hence a workman, in the employment of the appellant Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation. He remained absent from duty between 5-6-1982 and 8-8-1982 on the first occasion and again between 13-10-1992 and 1-11-1992 on the second occasion. A charge-sheet was served on him alleging the period of absence to be an unauthorised absence from duty. The respondent pleaded that he had remained absent because of ill-health due to jaundice for the first period of absence and due to chest pain and fever for the second period of absence from duty. In the departmental inquiry proceedings, the two charges referable to two periods of absence from duty framed against the respondent were found to be proved and the explanation for absence as offered by him was found not to have been substantiated. The respondent was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service.
(2.) The respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, as amended in its application to the State of Andhra pradesh by A. P. Amendment Act 32 of 1987. The Labour Court by its award dated 24-12-1997 held that no fault could be found with the disciplinary inquiry proceedings or with the findings arrived thereat. However, the Labour court concluded that though the respondent was guilty of the charges levelled against him but he had been without employment during the period of absence and has suffered thereby and so the penalty of not providing back wages would be the appropriate penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case, "while ordering for reinstatement with continuity of service". In the operative part of its award the Labour Court reiterated that an award was being passed "directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service but without back wages".
(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the respondent preferred a writ petition in the High Court which was heard and disposed of by a learned Single Judge vide the judgment dated 16-8-1999. A grievance was raised before the High Court that although the respondent was reinstated, but while fixing the wages payable to him on his reinstatement, the periodical increments which would have been earned by him had he been in service during the period of absence were not taken into account. The High Court directed the appellant Corporation to compute the periodical increments that would have been earned by the respondent had he been in service during the period of absence from duty and to fix the wages payable to the respondent after his reinstatement by taking into account the said increments. The appellant preferred an intra-court appeal which has been dismissed by a division Bench of the High Court by its impugned order. The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.;