- (1.)Petitioner when engaged as a conductor on Badli basis in the respondent Public Road Transport Corporation was brought on probation and absorbed against a vacant post on 28.10.1995. The allegation of misappropriation of revenue of the respondent Corporation, when proved in a domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 22.11.2000 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. That order when called in question in a proceeding invoking Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") registered as No.4/2001 on the file of Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, was rejected by award dated 4.1.2005. In other words, the order of termination of service of the workman was confirmed. That award when called in question in W.P.No.22948/2005, this Court by order dated 25.2.2009 observing that "charge alleged appears to have been proved", opined that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge proved and accordingly modified the order of punishment thus:
"Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The order of dismissal is set aside, however, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement but will not be entitled for five increments with cumulative effect and no back wages for the said period."

(2.)The respondent Road Transport Corporation complied with the order dated 25.2.2009 Annexure-A directing reinstatement and withholding 5 increments, by order dated 20.10.2009 Annexure-B. It appears that the petitioner made a representation on 4.4.2013- Annexure-C seeking proper pay fixation by extending him the benefit of continuity of service which when considered by the respondent, was rejected by endorsement dated 5.6.2013 Annexure-D, hence this petition.
(3.)Sri.V.S.Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits on instructions that petitioner restricts his claim to one of continuity of service only for the purpose of terminal benefits. Learned Counsel points to the observation of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 25.2.2009 Annexure-A to submit that interference with the award of the Labour Court was on the premise that the charges even though appears proved, the punishment of dismissal being shockingly disproportionate is modified to one of reinstatement by denying five increments with cumulative effect. According to the learned Counsel, the word 'reinstatement' takes into fold not only continuity of service but also consequential benefits as held by the Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2002 92 FLR 838 and another opinion of the Apex Court in Sanat Kumar Dwivedi vs Dhar Jila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank, 2000 87 FLR 349 and Sain Steel Products Vs. Naipal Singh and others, 2001 LabIC 2373. It is lastly submitted that in J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Vs K.P.Agrawal & Anr, 2007 2 SCC 433 at paragraph 19, though the Apex Court observed that where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back-wages nor continuity of service or consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement, nevertheless in the facts of this case, learned Single Judge having observed that the charge appears to have been proved and not that the charge is proved, the reinstatement directed by the learned Single Judge must be read to include consequential benefits and continuity of service.