HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30246 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioners are working on daily wage basis, in a Canteen in the premises of the Divisional Railway Manager, Waltair Division, 3rd respondent herein. The Central Government made a reference to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, on the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for regularization of the services. The same was taken up in I.D. No.19 of 2003. The Tribunal passed a nil award. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed W.P. No.21803 of 2005 and the same is pending. 2. Petitioners filed P.W. Case No.1 of 2007 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short ‘the Act’), the 1st respondent herein, complaining that they are not being paid the minimum wages for the posts held by them. Through an order dated 03-12-2008, the 1st respondent held that the petitioners are entitled for the minimum wages. The 3rd respondent filed a writ petition, challenging the said order and on dismissal of the same, Writ Appeal No.604 of 2009 was filed. Since no order of interim stay was passed, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the District Court against the order in P.W. case No.1 of 2007. 3. Petitioners filed a similar application for the period from 01-04-2007 to 31-03-2008 and the same was numbered as P.W. Case No.2 of 2008. Through order dated 27-01-2010, the 1st respondent observed that in view of the pendency of W.P. No.21803 of 2005, the application is not maintainable. Ultimately, the application was closed through order dated 23-02-2010. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. It is not as if the petitioners filed the case under the provisions of the Act before the 1st respondent, for the first time. P.W. Case No.1 of 2007 was filed for the period 2006 – 2007, and the same was adjudicated in favour of the petitioners. Things would have been different altogether, had this Court granted stay in any of the matters. Writ Petition No.21803 of 2005 is in relation to a totally different cause of action, viz., entitlement of the petitioners for regularization of services. There was absolutely no justification on the part of the 1st respondent in citing the pendency of that writ petition as a basis to decline exercise of jurisdiction. 6. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to decide P.W. Case No.2 of 2008 on merits, after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 06, 2010. KTLs