JUDGMENT Dilip B. Bhosale, J.—This writ petition is directed against the award dated 23rd November, 2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 58/2006, whereby, the Tribunal held that the respondent-workman was justified in demanding the benefit of continuity of service from 27.10.1995. The Tribunal accordingly directed the petitioner-Management to give the said benefit of continuity of service to the respondent-workman from 27.10.1995. The Government of Karnataka vide its order dated 4.3.2006 had referred industrial dispute to the Tribunal under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the following point of dispute: (i) Is the first party Union justified in demanding the management namely Chief Traffic Manager, BMTC, Central Division, Bangalore, to confirm the services of workman Sri Shivabasavegowda, conductor, reckoning period of probation from 15.9.1995 and if so, to what relief the said workman is entitled to? The respondent-workman was appointed as Badli Conductor as per the selection list prepared in the order of merit for the post of Conductors in 1993. After his appointment as Badli Conductor, he was allowed to work till 24.10.1998, that is, the date on which he was removed from the service on the allegations of misconduct. Challenge to the order of removal by way of an industrial dispute, bearing ID. No. 53/1998, was raised before the 3rd Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court passed an award on merits dated 22.7.2000 and directed the petitioner-management to reinstate the respondent-workman into service. It would be relevant to reproduce the operative portion of the order passed by the Tribunal, which reads thus: The claim statement filed by the I party under section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act is accepted. The order of dismissal passed by the II party in BMTC; DIS: D6: 6351: 1023 dated 24.10.1998 is ordered to be set aside. The I party is ordered to be reinstated back into service with continuity of service. 1st party shall not be entitled to the back-wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement and the same shall be treated as punishment in respect of proved misconduct. IInd party is directed to implement the award within one month from the date on which the award comes into force. 1st party shall not be entitled to the back-wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement and the same shall be treated as punishment in respect of proved misconduct. IInd party is directed to implement the award within one month from the date on which the award comes into force. It is not in dispute that another disciplinary proceedings was also initiated against the respondent-workman in 1995 and that was also concluded vide order dated 30.4.1997 passed by the disciplinary authority. By that order, he was held guilty of the charge of holding excess amount and in possession of used tickets. It further appears, the respondent-workman was held guilty on 30 occasions for minor misconduct and was held guilty and given minor punishment, during the period from 1993-98. In view of the order passed by the Labour Court dated 22nd July, 2000 in I.D. No. 53/1998 the respondent-workman was reinstated and placed under probation with effect from 25.9.2000. The respondent-workman accepted the order of reinstatement and the order placing him under probation at the relevant time and raised dispute in respect thereof for the first time in 2006. I would not like to consider whether he made any representations before 2006 to the Management, since, that may not be relevant. It is in this backdrop, the Industrial Tribunal passed the impugned order. The operative portion of the order read thus: The 1st party Union is justified in demanding the 2nd party management to give the benefit of continuity of service to the 1st party workman Sri Shivabasavegowda-Conductor from 27.10.1995 but not from 15.9.1995. Management is therefore directed to give the said benefit for continuity of service to the 1st party workman from 27.10.1995. Against this order, the Management preferred the instant writ petition. The respondent workman accepted the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 23.11.2007. In other words, respondent-workman did not challenge any part of the order of Industrial Tribunal. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioners-Corporation have challenged the order impugned in the present writ petition on apprehension that in view of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal giving benefit of continuity of service to the respondent-workman from 27.10.1995, he is likely to claim consequential benefits. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioners-Corporation have challenged the order impugned in the present writ petition on apprehension that in view of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal giving benefit of continuity of service to the respondent-workman from 27.10.1995, he is likely to claim consequential benefits. In my opinion, the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the observations made in the body of the award is unfounded. The law is well settled that, merely because, an employee has been directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages, does not mean that he can claim benefits of increments, promotions, special allowance etc. during the period when he was not on duty or during the period when he was out of service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, fairly stated that they have no objection for extending terminal benefits to the respondent-workman. The Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) and Others Vs. Abdul Kareem, AIR 2005 SC 3791 as in paragraph-11 of the report held thus: 11. Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, as already noticed, the Labour Court specifically directed that the reinstatement would be without back-wages. There is no specific direction that the employee would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. Therefore, in the absence of specific direction in that regard, merely because an employee has been directed to be reinstated without back-wages, he could not claim a benefit of increments notionally earned during the period when he was not on duty or during the period when he was not on duty or during the period when he was out of service. It would be incongruous to suggest that an employee, having been held guilty and remained absent from duty for a long time, continues to earn increments though there is no payment of wages for the period of absence. Similarly, in JT (2007) 3 SC 1 , the Supreme Court observed thus: 17. There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, 'continuity of service' and consequential benefits' should follow, as a matter of course. Similarly, in JT (2007) 3 SC 1 , the Supreme Court observed thus: 17. There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, 'continuity of service' and consequential benefits' should follow, as a matter of course. The disastrous effect of granting several promotions as a consequential benefit to a person who has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does not have benefit of necessary experience for discharging the higher duties and functions of promotional posts, is seldom visualized while granting consequential benefits automatically. Whenever Courts or Tribunals direct reinstatement, they should apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances to decide whether continuity of service' and/or consequential benefits' should also be directed. In paragraph-19 of the very same judgment, the Supreme Court further observed that even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for the purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions etc. It is in this view of the matter and the settled position of law, the apprehension expressed by the Corporation, in my opinion, is unfounded. In any circumstances, the respondent-workman shall not be entitled to consequential benefits in view of the order, impugned in the present writ petition. 2. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Hence, the petition is disposed of. No costs.