What relief to reinstated employee in service with continuit
Guest
(Querist) 06 January 2018
This query is : Resolved
My award as under;- Thus holding inquiry without proper notice to workman is neither fair nor proper and on the basis of the inquiry report, aforesaid, the termination of the service of the workman is illegal. The third illegality in the termination of the service of the workman is that he has been terminated from service vide letter dated 27-9-1995 ex MW2/11 w.e.f. 10-06-1994. Termination from retrospective date is not permissible or legal. All the issues are decided in favour of the workman and against the management. In views of my aforesaid observations and Findings, I hold that examinating from any angle, the termination of the service of the workman, vide letter letter dated 27-9-1995 Ex MW2/11 can't be upheld. It is illegal without holding proper inquiry . No notice or notice pay was given nor any compensation was paid. The termination is illegal and set aside . The workman is ordered to be reinstated into the service of respondent w.e.f the date of demand notice with continuity of service and with 50℅ of back wages. Management give me 50% back wages from the date of demand notice but without add in salary back 21years's annual increments. I joined my duty on Oct.2015 and now I will retired on Feb.2018. management fixed my pay fresh pay scale without adding 21 year annual increments in pay.
Guest
(Expert) 06 January 2018
No extra relief other than those that mentioned in the judgment. Increments are allowed on duty period with full pay. Judgment was faulty. When treated illegal and set aside the period was also required to be treated as duty for all purposes.
Now, retire peacefully on as is where is and what got without any further hope. You can't even make appeal, if relief for treatment of absence as duty period and duty pay for that was not sought in original application. Still further, you lost even two years more in asking your question after your joining, what to say of the date of judgment.
Guest
(Expert) 06 January 2018
Nicely explained by Mr. Dhingra.
Guest
(Querist) 06 January 2018
My Award dated 18-05-15 and management joined me on duty 17-10-2015. Management give me salary from from that date with fresh pay scale. I joined duty in Oct.1988 and dispute in June 1984.
I demand pay fixing with back 21 years increments and Punjab govt. 's 4-9-14 scheme add in my salary through written from managements on dated October, 2016 but management rejected my demand. Again I send legal notice for these demands through advocate and management reply with reference "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2003(3)SCT 668, APSRTC vs Abdul Kareem and rejected our demand. We Again send written reply to management with reference many judgements but they not reply till to date
Guest
(Querist) 06 January 2018
My Award dated 18-05-15 and management joined me on duty 17-10-2015. Management give me salary from from that date with fresh pay scale. I joined duty in Oct.1988 and dispute in June 1994. I demand pay fixing with back 21 years increments and Punjab govt. 's 4-9-14 scheme add in my salary through written from managements on dated October, 2016 but management rejected my demand. Again I send legal notice for these demands through advocate and management reply with reference "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2003(3)SCT 668, APSRTC vs Abdul Kareem and rejected our demand. We Again send written reply to management with reference many judgements but they not reply till to date
P. Venu
(Expert) 07 January 2018
This query was posted earlier and I have suggested that you are entitled to get increments. The facts in the cases covered by the Common decision in APSRTC vs. Abdul Kareem were different in that the employees were directed to be taken back in service without backwages as the punishment imposed was found to be disproportionate. However, in the instant case, the decision has been held to be illegal and the employee having been allowed half the back wages, it is only a logical corollary, in my considered opinion, that he is entitled for consequential benefits.
Guest
(Expert) 07 January 2018
The expert has the need to understand, Government's functions are run by prescribed statutory rules, not by individual's logic or logical corollaries. Moreover, in law also, any individual's logic has no relevance as against the Government's prescribed rules.
The employer is not obliged to give even a single paisa more than as per the order of the court. A matter of common sense, as against anyone's logic is that lapse on the part of the lawyer not to ask for the treatment of the interim period as duty for all purposes is the saving of the employer.
