IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 33322 of 1998 Between: 1 The Executive Engineer, RW & M Division, Cuddapah. 2 The Chief Engineer, Mechanical 2nd floor ManoranjanBuildings M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Secretariat to Govt. I & CAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 P. Manohar C/o Fakrumaiah Brodipet, Guntur. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to MP.No.13/94 dt 26-6-97 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following Order: Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Ananthapur, in MP.No.13 of 1994 dated 20-06-1997, the present writ petition is filed. MP.No.13 of 1994 was filed, under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by certain NMR helpers working under the petitioners claiming parity in pay with work charged employees. Before the Labour Court, one of the workmen was examined as WW.1, whereas on behalf of the Management, Sri K.Jagadeesh Kumar was examined as MW.1. Exs.W.1 to W.8 were marked on behalf of the workman and Exs.M.1 to M.3 were marked on behalf of the petitioner-Management. The Labour Court took note of the admission of MW.1 that under G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 01-06-1977, there was an agreement, between the Chief Engineer, Srisailam Project and their employees, for payment of wages on par with work charged employees and that the contention of MW.1 that the said G.O. was not applicable to their division was not tenable. The Labour Court noted that, on the strength of G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 01-06-1977, Sri K.Prabhakar and others, who were NMR workers, filed M.P.No.366 of 1987 claiming the difference of wages, that the Labour Court had passed an order in their favour and that the said order had been complied with by the petitioner-Management. The Labour Court held that once some of the NMR workers, working in the divisions of the petitioners, had been extended the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 01-06-1977, it could not be said that the workmen, who were working under the petitioner- Management, were not entitled to the said benefit. The Labour Court allowed the application and directed the petitioner-Management to compute the difference of wages for the actual working days during the period of claim and to pay the same within three months, failing which, it would carry simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of expiry of three months. Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation would fairly state that though the writ petition was admitted, the WPMP filed was dismissed. It is quite possible that the amounts have already been paid though the learned Government Pleader would express ignorance as to what transpired subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. The order of the Labour Court granting relief to the first respondent was based on a similar relief being granted to other NMR workers in M.P.No.366 of 1987. In accordance with the orders passed by the Labour Court in MP.No.366 of 1987, and since the first respondent also stands on the same footing, he was entitled to the relief of parity in pay scales. The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity necessitating interference in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ 18-02-2008 usd To 1.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JPK}