HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 1888 OF 2005 Dated 22nd December, 2009. Between The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bodhan Depot, Nizamabad District ….Petitioner and M.Venkateswara Rao and, anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 1888 OF 2005 ORDER: The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Bodhan Depot, Nizamabad District, challenges the order dated 13.7.2004 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in MP.No.20 of 2003. The said petition was ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) seeking payment of a sum of Rs.26,730/- towards full wages for the period that he was placed under ‘put off duty’ i.e. from 8.8.1997 to 10.7.1998. The ﬁrst respondent was appointed as a Driver in the service of the APSRTC on daily wage basis. He was placed under ‘put oﬀ duty’ for 283 days with eﬀect from 8.8.1997. He was thereafter removed from service after due enquiry on 10.7.1998. The APSRTC denied him wages for the period that he was under ‘put oﬀ duty’. Aggrieved thereby, the ﬁrst respondent ﬁled the subject petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 seeking payment of wages for that period. By its order dated 13.7.2004 the Labour Court directed the APSRTC to pay full wages of Rs.26,730/- to the ﬁrst respondent for the said period. Sri G. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel, representing Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, contended that as the ﬁrst respondent had not performed any duty during the said period, the direction of the Labour Court to pay the full wages was unsustainable. Per contra, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Counsel for the ﬁrst respondent, placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in B.A.KUMAR v. A.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER[1], wherein it was held that an employer can suspend the employee in terms of the Rules or by invoking its inherent jurisdiction and ought not to place such employee on ‘put off duty’. He also placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C., MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD Vs. M. RAMULU [2], wherein a daily wage Driver in the service of the APSRTC was placed on ‘put oﬀ duty’ and was thereafter removed from service, as in the present case. He thereupon ﬁled a petition under Section 33- C(2) of the Act of 1947 seeking payment of wages for the period that he was placed on ‘put oﬀ duty’ prior to his termination from service. The learned Judge accepted the contention urged on behalf of the Driver that though he was a daily wage employee in the service of the APSRTC, he fulﬁlled the requirements to qualify as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947. Further, the learned Judge found that the Regulations governing the APSRTC did not empower it to place an employee on ‘put oﬀ duty’. The learned Judge therefore came to the conclusion that the application ﬁled by the Driver under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947 was maintainable. The learned Judge referred to the earlier judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (by its Depot Manager) MUSHEERABAD, Vs. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS [3], wherein the learned Judge was dealing with Conductors engaged originally on daily wage basis. However, as they were removed from service after due enquiry as per Regulations, the learned Judge opined that they were employees in the service of the Corporation. The learned Judge took note of the fact that neither the Conduct Regulations nor the Service Regulations provide for putting any employee ‘oﬀ duty’. The same was neither a punishment nor an intermediate measure in aid of any punishment prescribed under the Service Regulations. In such circumstances, the learned Judge upheld the order of the Labour Court, entertaining the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947, for granting the relief of payment of wages for such ‘off duty’ period. In the light of the aforestated position of law, it is clear that the action of the APSRTC in placing the ﬁrst respondent on ‘put oﬀ duty’ and denying him wages for the said period is without sanction of law. The Regulations governing the APSRTC do not authorize such a course of action. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court in MP.No.20 of 2003. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DATED 22ND DECEMBER, 2009. Msnr. [1] 2001 (1) ALD 553 (DB) [2] 2000(1) ALD 138 [3] 1993-II L.L.N. 272