ORDER : 1. The petitioner – KSRTC in W.P.No.16250/2018 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs : (a) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order dated 19.6.2017 in Application No.3/2014 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore (Annexure H) (b) Such other writ, direction or Order that this Hon'ble Court deem just and expedient in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner-workman in W.P.No.14466/ 2021 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs : I. Issue a writ of Order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned Endorsement No. A RAA SA/KAE KA/LA PA/SAMANYA/5146/18/19 dated 22.3.2019 passed by the first Respondent as contained under Annexure-A and impugned endorsement bearing No. KA RAA SA/BA KE V/SEBANDI/NIRVAKA/52/2019-20 dated 22.5.2019 passed by the second Respondent as contained under Annexure-B; II. Issue a writ or order in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the leave encashment benefit for the dismissal period on attaining the age of superannuation. Further directed the Respondents to pay the simple interest on the difference leave encashment amount from the date of superannuation till the date of payment; III. Issue any appropriate writ, order, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and an order as to costs to meet the ends of justice. 3. The workman was appointed as a conductor and his services were confirmed in the year 1977. He having been subjected to disciplinary enquiry and charges being established, he came to be dismissed from service vide order dated 14.01.1991, which came to be challenged in I.D.No.34/1991. The Labour Court allowed the claim by directing the Corporation to reinstate the workman into services with continuity of service, consequential benefits and without backwages vide order dated 07.01.1993. The said award came to be implemented by the Corporation. The workman was accorded leave benefits for a period of 82 days from 14.01.1991 to 07.01.1993 with a condition that he can avail the leave but not entitled for the encashment of the said leave. 4. The workman in the meanwhile retired from service on 31.07.2012. The said award came to be implemented by the Corporation. The workman was accorded leave benefits for a period of 82 days from 14.01.1991 to 07.01.1993 with a condition that he can avail the leave but not entitled for the encashment of the said leave. 4. The workman in the meanwhile retired from service on 31.07.2012. As per leave rules, he having been found to be entitled for encashment of leave for a period of 240 days and by the circular, the same was enhanced to 300 days. He was accorded leave encashment benefit for another 6 days in terms of new circular and totally, he was paid leave encashment benefit for 246 days. 5. The workman filed an application No.3/2014 before the Labour Court, Bangalore claiming a sum of Rs.1,09,210/-towards the difference in leave encashment benefits. 6. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘RTC’) filed its objections and evidence was recorded. The Labour Court allowed the claim and directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.1,09,210/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of retirement till the date of payment vide its order dated 19.06.2017 at Annexure-H. It is this order which is challenged by the RTC contending that the workman not having worked during the said period would not be entitled for encashment of leave but only entitled for availment of leave and the order passed by the Labour Court directing for payment of encashment of leave is bad in law. The workman is also before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 7. Subsequent to the order of the Labour Court, the RTC has issued an endorsement on 22.03.2019 and 22.05.2019 wherein the RTC has rejected the claim of the workman for leave encashment during the period of dismissal. It is the said endorsement which is challenged by the workman in WP 14466/2021. The issue in both the matters are one and the same inasmuch as they relate to leave encashment. 8. Ms. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for RTC would submit that : 8.1. The earned leave is a privilege which can be earned by a workman only by working. If a workman had not worked, there is no earned leave which will be available to his credit. The earned leave being proportionate to a day’s work by the workman. 8. Ms. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for RTC would submit that : 8.1. The earned leave is a privilege which can be earned by a workman only by working. If a workman had not worked, there is no earned leave which will be available to his credit. The earned leave being proportionate to a day’s work by the workman. During the dismissed period the workman not working, she submits would not be entitle to the privilege of earned leave and as such, she submits that the order passed by the Labour Court allowing encashment of leave is bad in law. 8.2. On the very same ground, she submits that the endorsement has been issued by the RTC which is in challenge in W.P.No.14466/2021 is proper and correct. 8.3. In this regard, she relies upon the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation Employees Leave Rules, 1964, (for short, ‘Rules’) which is applicable to the RTC more particularly Rule 4, 6 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: (4) ‘Completed Year’s of service and ‘One year’s continuous service’ mean continuous service of the specified duration and include periods spent on duty and authorized holidays as well as on leave including extraordinary leave. (6) “Earned Leave” means leave earned in respect of periods spent on duty and shall include privilege leave earned during the old rules. 8.4. By referring to the above, she submits that the earned leave means leave earned only during the period spent on duty and therefore in the dismissed period, there being no duty performed, no earned leave would be applicable. The manner of calculation of earned leave is in Part 4A of the aforesaid Rules. She refers to Rule 11, 12 and 13 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference : (11) ‘Pay’ means the amount drawn monthly by an employee as:- (a) as pay (other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications) which has been sanctioned for a post, held by him substantively, or in an officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre. (b) technical pay, special pay and personal pay (c) any other emoluments which may be specifically classed as pay by the Administration. (12) ‘Permanent Employee’ means an employee who has a substantive lien on a permanent appointment. (b) technical pay, special pay and personal pay (c) any other emoluments which may be specifically classed as pay by the Administration. (12) ‘Permanent Employee’ means an employee who has a substantive lien on a permanent appointment. (13) ‘Regular Employee’ means an employee recruited by competent authority in accordance with recruitment regulations whether in a temporary or in a permanent post and includes one who has completed a period of probation, if any, and has been subsequently confirmed. 8.5. The admissible earned leave being calculated on one eleventh of the period spent on duty, she submits that there is no manner of verifying whether the workman would have been on duty or not for the purpose of calculation of earned leave. She further submits that without being on duty, no earned leave can be earned. She refers to Rule 35 of the said Rules, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:- 35. An Employee who is dismissed or removed from service but is reinstated on appeal or revision is entitled to count his former service for leave. 8.6. By referring to the said Rules, she submits that it is the only former service or leave prior to dismissal or removal which can be taken into account. Former service would mean and include active duty performed by the workman. She relies on the judgment in the case of The General Manager, Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru vs. H.C. Jayaprakash, ILR 2020 KAR 1783 more particularly Paras 8, 9, 11 and 14 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:- 8. In the case of Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (Supra), the Apex Court while considering the entitlement of a dismissed employee who was reinstated with consequential benefits held at paragraph 34 as under: “34. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is “no work no pay in appropriate cases, however, a court of law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The court may in the circumstances, direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering “as if he had worked”. The court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The court may in the circumstances, direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering “as if he had worked”. It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a court of law and if such directions are issued by a court, the authority can ignore them even if they had been finally confirmed by the Apex Court of the country (as has been done in the present case). The bald contention of the appellant Board, therefore, has no substance and must be rejected.” 9. The proposition of law that has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to the above cases can be summed up as that an employee if reinstated with consequential benefits would be entitled to all such benefits that he would have got if he had worked in the normal course. But, he is not entitled to those allowances which would accrue only if he worked in the conditions entitling him to draw the allowances. 11. Similarly, this Court in writ petition No. 735 of 1989 has held that earned leave is not salary and the petitioner is not entitled to the same when he was not working. It has observed “earned leave cannot have been earned as a matter of right, but by actual working”. In appeal in W.A. No. 9185 of 1996, the Division Bench of this Court did not reverse any of the propositions of law laid down by the Learned Single Judge, but on facts found that the appellant therein had indeed worked and was entitled to 80 days of earned leave and granted the same to him. It does not amount to directing the employer to pay earned leave as part of consequential benefits. 14. Earned leave is a privilege a workman would be entitled to only by actual working and it cannot be earned as a matter of right even if he did not work. Even if he were to be in employment, he becomes entitled to it only if he works and earns it, otherwise not. It is similar to night shift or traveling allowance which accrue only if the person decides to work. Even if he were to be in employment, he becomes entitled to it only if he works and earns it, otherwise not. It is similar to night shift or traveling allowance which accrue only if the person decides to work. If he does not work, in that event, he is not entitled to it. Hence, earned leave unless the relevant regulations expressly specifies otherwise cannot be considered as part of consequential benefits. 8.7. By relying on the above, she submits that the employee who is reinstated with consequential benefits would only be entitled to such benefits that he would have got if he had worked in the normal course. Earned leave being a privilege, the workman would be entitled to it by actually working for it and that it cannot be earned as a matter of right. Earned leave unless relevant regulations expressly specify otherwise cannot be considered as a part of consequential benefits. 8.8. She relies on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.R. Tyagi vs. National Textile Corporation, (1996) 9 LAWS (KAR) 8 [WP.No.735/1989] more particularly Para 10 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:- 10. This Court while disposing of the writ petition has not ordered for reinstatement of the dismissed employee, but has made a declaration to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits in view of quashing of the order of termination. What is the effect of such declaration ? Undoubtedly two consequences would flow -(a) that the employee/worker is reinstated and that the contract of service is restored; (b) that from that date he is entitled to the wages at the rate he was entitled to prior to the date of dismissal. The word "re-instatement" has been explained by several courts to mean, replacing a person in the position from which he was dismissed, restoration of status quo ante as it existed prior to the order of termination. Ordinarily reinstatement contemplates payment of backwages. Though the Officer was not on duty, he must be deemed to have remained in service once the order of termination is set aside. Then the employee is entitled to benefits which would have accrued to him as if the order of termination was never passed. Thus the effect of the order of reinstatement is merely to set at naught the order of wrongful dismissal. Then the employee is entitled to benefits which would have accrued to him as if the order of termination was never passed. Thus the effect of the order of reinstatement is merely to set at naught the order of wrongful dismissal. Now the question that requires to be considered is whether the employee, apart from backwages is entitled for any other monetary benefits, in the present case earned leave salary, leave travel concession, medical reimbursement and annual increments. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that when the workman is reinstated with backwages, then the period of forced unemployment is equated with period on duty and therefore earned leave should be paid to him. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that for entitlement of this monetary benefit, the employee should earn leave while he is working in the company. For that purpose relies upon the Rules of the Company which has come into force with effect from January 1, 1976. The rules are titled as "National Textile Corporation (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Mahe) Limited Leave Rules, 1976. In the said Rules, the expression "Earned Leave" is defined to mean "Leave earned in respect of periods of service with the Corporation and granted on full pay". This leave can be earned in respect of the periods of actual service in the Corporation. Even though the petitioner was not in service of the respondent-Company during the disputed period, he cannot be deemed to be in service either by creating a legal fiction or by a notional presumption. The details and the procedure for earning leave is prescribed under Clause-6 and 7 of the leave rules. The said clauses of the leave rules give a clear indication that the leave has to be earned and it cannot be granted by default or when the employee is not on duty. It is like earning interest on the money deposited in a financial institution. For every 12 days of working, one day's earned leave will be credited to employee's leave account and 2 1/2 days for each completed month of service. If an employee does not work, he would not be entitled to any earned leave, since it is only earned leave is encashable and not any other leave such as commuted leave, half pay leave, casual leave etc. If an employee does not work, he would not be entitled to any earned leave, since it is only earned leave is encashable and not any other leave such as commuted leave, half pay leave, casual leave etc. Earned leave account is maintained in two parts -(a) encashable and (b) non-encashable. Any part or whole of encashable leave can be availed as leave and it is not necessary that it should be encashed. The quantum of earned leave is limited to a maximum of 75% earned leave admissible during a calender year subject to a maximum of 23 days and the balance is credited to non-encashable earned leave account. The amount payable towards encashment of leave will not be reckoned as salary for the purpose of overtime, bonus, gratuity, etc. A conjoint reading of clauses-6 & 7 of the Leave Rules leaves no manner of doubt that this leave has to be earned while in service and not while out of service. If the workman/employee did not perform any work during the period of termination, it is not open to him to demand leave with wages or compensation in lieu thereof. In my view this claim cannot be treated as either legal or valid, since the earned leave cannot have been earned as a matter of right, but only by actual working. Now coming to the claim for leave travel concession, it is governed by National Textile Corporation (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Mahe) Limited, Travelling Allowance Rules, 1975. In the said Rules, 'Leave Travel Concession (LTC) is defined to mean,' 'a concession given to an employee for visiting his home town or any other place in India'. This facility will be admissible to employees and members of their families. An employee will be entitled to claim full reimbursement of actual cost of travel as per the entitlement rules. This gives a clear indication that the employee should actually travel to claim leave travel concession. If he does not travel, he cannot encash leave travel concession. Since petitioner was out of employment, the question of himself and his family members undertaking travel and incurring actual cost of travel would not arise. This gives a clear indication that the employee should actually travel to claim leave travel concession. If he does not travel, he cannot encash leave travel concession. Since petitioner was out of employment, the question of himself and his family members undertaking travel and incurring actual cost of travel would not arise. Once again question of deeming that, if the employer had not prevented the employee, in the present case petitioner, he would have travelled and he would have incurred expenses cannot be imported into the language employed in the Rules and in my view this claim of the petitioner is also unsustainable in law and in the face of unambiguous language employed in the Rules. 8.9. By relying on the above, she submits that the employee would be entitled to the benefits which would have accrued to him as if the order of termination was never passed. There cannot be a fiction created. That even during the period of dismissal, the reinstated employee is in service. It is only if the procedure prescribed for earned leave is followed that the workman could earn it. 8.10. She relies upon the decision in the case of Andhra Bank, rep by its Chairman and Managing Director vs. P. Balakrishna, (2005) 4 LAWS(APH) 117 [W.A.NO.1089/2004] more particularly Para 15 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:- 15. After going through various settlements of memoranda between the workmen and the employer, we are in no doubt to conclude that the privilege leave is intended for rest and recuperation and the workman has to render active service and thereby earn privilege leave to his credit. A workman out of service for any reason whatsoever is not entitled to privilege leave. 8.11. On the basis of the above, she submits that the Writ Petition filed by RTC is required to be allowed and that the Writ Petition filed by the workman is required to be dismissed. 9. Sri. L. Shekar, learned counsel for the workman would submit that 9.1. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the RTC are not applicable in the present matter for the reason that those decisions were rendered in respect of banks where the Regulations did not provide for availment of earned leave. 9.2. 9. Sri. L. Shekar, learned counsel for the workman would submit that 9.1. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the RTC are not applicable in the present matter for the reason that those decisions were rendered in respect of banks where the Regulations did not provide for availment of earned leave. 9.2. Insofar as the RTC is concerned, he submits that in terms of Rules more particularly Rule 35 which has been reproduced hereinabove, the workman would be entitled to earned leave and encashment thereof upon being reinstated. The word ‘former’, he submits, includes the dismissal period and cannot be restricted to leave earned prior to the dismissal. The contention is that it is on account of illegal action on part of the RTC that the workman was refused employment and it is in that background that the workman could not work and earn leave and if not for the illegal action of the RTC in terminating the services of the workman, the workman would have been on duty and thereby earned the privilege leave or earned leave. The employer cannot deprive the workman of the earned leave merely because the workman was not on duty since the reason why the workman was not on duty was on account of the RTC having dismissed the workman from service arbitrarily. 9.3. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Andra Pradesh High Court in the case of Md. Jahangir vs. The Regional Manager, APSRTC more particularly Paras 7, 21 and 22, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference : 7. The point for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled to accumulate earned leave for the period out of employment including the period of suspension as a consequence to award passed by a Labour Court? 21. The word "reinstatement" has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, 3rd Edition, the word "reinstate" means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word "reinstatement" means the action of reinstating; reestablishment. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. II, 3rd Edition, the word "reinstate" means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word "reinstatement" means the action of reinstating; reestablishment. As per Law Lexicon, 2nd Edition, the word "reinstate" means to reinstall; to re-establish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed and the word "reinstatement" means establishing in former condition, position or authority (as) reinstatement of a deposed prince. As per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the word "reinstate" means to place again (as in possession or in a former position), to restore to a previous effective state. As per Black's Law Dictionary, 6thEdition, "reinstatement" means 'to reinstall, to re-establish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office? To restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed.' 22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments. 9.4. By relying on the above, he submits that once an employee is restored to its position, which is held before dismissal, removal or termination, the workman would have to be put in same position in which he would have been, but for the illegal action taken by the employer and he submits that in all such cases, Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the backwages would have to be paid to the workman. In the present case, it is not backwages which is the subject matter but it is only earned leave which the workman would have earned if not for the illegal action of the employer. 10. Heard Ms. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for RTC and Sri. L. Renukar, learned counsel for workmen and perused the papers. 11. The points that would arise for consideration are : 1. Whether the earned leave is part of the consequential benefits and if consequential benefits is ordered, would be workman entitled to the earned leave as also to encash the earned leave. 2. Whether a person is required to actually render duties to earn the earned leave 3. What order? 12. I answer the above points as under: 13. Answer to Point No.1: Whether the earned leave is part of the consequential benefits and if consequential benefits is ordered, would be workman entitled to the earned leave as also to encash the earned leave. 14. Answer to Point No.2: Whether a person is required to actually render duties to earn the earned leave? 15. Points No.1 and 2 are taken up together for consideration. 14. Answer to Point No.2: Whether a person is required to actually render duties to earn the earned leave? 15. Points No.1 and 2 are taken up together for consideration. The only dispute in the present matter is as regards the entitlement of earned leave during the period of dismissal and the encashment thereof. The contention of Ms. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for RTC in this regard is that the workman would be entitled for earned leave but will not be entitled to encashment inasmuch as for the purpose of encashment, it is required of a workman to have actually worked and earned the leave. 16. This submission in my considered opinion is counter productive. 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 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. 17. In the present case, the RTC has calculated and made available the earned leave to the workman. But since the workman had superannuated, the workman wanting encashment of the earned leave had sought for such encashment which came to be refused. 18. The Labour Court in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act has come to a conclusion that whenever there is a reinstatement with continuity of service, the workman will be entitled to the benefit of earned leave. 19. Despite the said order by endorsement dated 22.03.2019 and 22.05.2019, the encashment was rejected by the RTC. Rule 35 of the aforesaid Rules, which has been extracted hereinabove, indicates that when an employee dismissed or removed from service, is reinstated in an appeal or revision, he is entitled to his former service for leave. 20. 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. 21. 20. 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. 21. Rule 35 being categorical that the former service being taken into consideration for determination of leave, the calculation in terms of Part 4A referred to supra would have to be made applicable to that period. This being so, for the reason that, if not for the illegal termination, the workman would have worked and earned the leave as provided under Rule 35. The decision in H.C. Jayaprakash’s case referred to by the learned counsel for RTC in my considered opinion would not be applicable for the reason that there was no similar Rule 35 which is applicable to Vijay Bank, who was the employer. 22. The said decision in Vijaya Bank’s case is also based on the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Bank’s case where again there is no similar clause as Rule 35. Infact, both in Vijaya Bank and Andhra Bank’s cases, there is no provision which is available on record to indicate that the workman on reinstatement would be entitled to earned leave. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in APSRTC’s case has taken into account the Andhra Bank’s case and come to a conclusion that the workman on reinstatement would be entitled to earned leave. In that regard, the Andra Pradesh High Court has relied upon the decision in APSRTC and another vs. S. Narasagoud, (2003) 2 SCC 212 and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 . 23. The Apex Court in Narasagoud’s case held that there was a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee would be entitled to all the consequential benefits and came to a conclusion that during the period of unauthorized absence, increment notionally earned could not be considered. Applying the said decision here, if the absence was otherwise then that attributed to the workman, then the consequential benefits would include all benefits including increment, earned leave, encashment of earned leave, etc., since it is on account of the employer that the employee has been prevented from working. 24. In view of the above discussions, I answer Point No.1 by holding that a workman of the KSRTC dismissed from service on being reinstated with a direction permitting him to avail of consequential benefits, the said consequential benefits would include earned leave and encashment of earned leave. 25. I answer Point No.2 by holding that when reinstatement is ordered and the dismissal is held to be invalid or illegal, the workman need not be on duty to claim earned leave. 26. Answer to Point No.3: What order? 27. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following : ORDER i. W.P.No.16250/2018 filed by the KSRTC stand dismissed. ii. W.P.No.14466 filed by the workmen stands allowed. iii. Endorsement dated 22.03.2019 issued by respondent No.1 and the endorsement dated 22.05.2019 issued by respondent No.2 are quashed. iv. RTC is directed to make payment towards encashment of earned leave during the period of dismissal.