THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1217 OF 2004 DATED 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kamareddy Depot, Nizamabad District. …Appellant And T.Vishnu and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1217 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per GM,J) This writ appeal by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) is filed against the common order dated 08.12.2003 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in so far as it pertained to Writ Petition No.14428 of 2003 whereby the order dated 02.01.2003 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in M.P.No.28 of 2001 was confirmed. Parties shall be referred to as ‘the APSRTC’ and ‘the workman’ respectively for the sake of convenience. The issue that falls for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the workman, a daily-wage Driver in the service of the APSRTC, who was placed on put-off duty for a specific period, is entitled to wages for such period. The learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted before us that the said issue is squarely covered by the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in B.A.KUMAR v. A.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD[1] and a Judgment rendered by one of us (GM,J) in APSRTC, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD v. M.RAMULU[2]. The learned standing counsel for the appellant APSRTC fairly conceded that the said Judgments directly cover the issue involved in this appeal. In B.A.KUMAR1, the learned Division Bench held thus: “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that against the appellant herein departmental proceedings have been initiated, the respondent- Corporation as a model employer ought not to have put him off the duty. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, however, submits that the appellant herein was a daily rated worker. Even if that be so, in our opinion, he had not been treated as such, as departmental proceedings have been initiated against him for enquiry into the allegations of misconduct. In such situation, the employer can only suspend the employee in terms of the rules, for which he would be entitled to claim subsistence allowance or the employer may invoke its inherent jurisdiction to suspend an employee by not taking any work from him in which event he would be entitled to the full salary. ………” In M.RAMULU2, it was held that the Labour Court acting under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is competent to entertain and make an award or settlement under Chapter V-A thereof. Holding so, the writ petition was dismissed confirming the order passed by the Labour Court in that case. The learned single Judge followed the Judgment of the Division Bench in B.A.KUMAR1 and considering the facts of case, rightly dismissed the writ petition under the impugned order. In the light of the law laid down by this Court in B.A.KUMAR1 a n d M.RAMULU2, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, this writ appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. VGSR/PGS [1] 2001 (1) ALD 553 (DB) [2] 2000 (1) ALD 138