<p>The High Court has said that consequential benefits, awarded to a reinstated KSRTC workman, would include earned leave and encashment of earned leave.</p>.<p>Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that once the dismissal is held to be invalid or illegal and reinstatement is ordered, the workman need not be on duty to claim the earned leave.</p>.<p>A conductor with the KSRTC was dismissed from service in 1991 after the disciplinary proceedings. The Labour Court in January 1993 allowed his application and had reinstated him with all consequential benefits, except the back wages. On his retirement in 2012, the workman again moved the Labour Court claiming Rs 1,09,210 towards the difference in leave encashment benefit.</p>.<p>He contended that the KSRTC had paid leave encashment benefit for 246 days as against 300 days as per the new circular. The Labour Court ruled in his favour directing the KSRTC to pay the differential amount with 12 per cent interest.</p>.<p>In its appeal challenging this order, the KSRTC argued that a workman having not worked during the relevant period, is only entitled for leave and not entitled to encashment of the leaves. The workman was also issued with certain endorsements in this regard during 2019, rejecting his claim for leave encashment benefit during the period of dismissal.</p>.<p>Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed by the KSRTC and issued directions to make payment towards encashment of earned leave during the period of dismissal.</p>.<p>"The RTC cannot claim on the one hand that the workman, during his dismissal, would be entitled to earned leave, which he can avail, but he cannot encash the earned leave. The distinction sought to be made out by the RTC appears to be completely artificial. Once the workman is entitled to earned leave, encashment or otherwise is only a matter of form and not substance. The entitlement being determined by rights of the parties," the court said.</p>.<p>The bench further said, "Reinstatement of a workman by setting aside the order of dismissal would amount to an order of dismissal never having been passed. If this is taken into consideration, the former service would include the service from the date of reinstatement and before, not service from the date of dismissal and before."</p>
<p>The High Court has said that consequential benefits, awarded to a reinstated KSRTC workman, would include earned leave and encashment of earned leave.</p>.<p>Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that once the dismissal is held to be invalid or illegal and reinstatement is ordered, the workman need not be on duty to claim the earned leave.</p>.<p>A conductor with the KSRTC was dismissed from service in 1991 after the disciplinary proceedings. The Labour Court in January 1993 allowed his application and had reinstated him with all consequential benefits, except the back wages. On his retirement in 2012, the workman again moved the Labour Court claiming Rs 1,09,210 towards the difference in leave encashment benefit.</p>.<p>He contended that the KSRTC had paid leave encashment benefit for 246 days as against 300 days as per the new circular. The Labour Court ruled in his favour directing the KSRTC to pay the differential amount with 12 per cent interest.</p>.<p>In its appeal challenging this order, the KSRTC argued that a workman having not worked during the relevant period, is only entitled for leave and not entitled to encashment of the leaves. The workman was also issued with certain endorsements in this regard during 2019, rejecting his claim for leave encashment benefit during the period of dismissal.</p>.<p>Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed by the KSRTC and issued directions to make payment towards encashment of earned leave during the period of dismissal.</p>.<p>"The RTC cannot claim on the one hand that the workman, during his dismissal, would be entitled to earned leave, which he can avail, but he cannot encash the earned leave. The distinction sought to be made out by the RTC appears to be completely artificial. Once the workman is entitled to earned leave, encashment or otherwise is only a matter of form and not substance. The entitlement being determined by rights of the parties," the court said.</p>.<p>The bench further said, "Reinstatement of a workman by setting aside the order of dismissal would amount to an order of dismissal never having been passed. If this is taken into consideration, the former service would include the service from the date of reinstatement and before, not service from the date of dismissal and before."</p>
