THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.18280 OF 2001 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal in Miscellaneous Petition No.38/1996, in partly allowing the claim of the workman in a petition ﬁled under Section 33- C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the respondent - Management of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, ﬁled the present writ petition. 3. The workman ﬁled claim petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to determine the amounts payable to him as wages for the period from 1.12.1993 to 31.7.1996 by the petitioner – Management. 4. The claim of the workman is that he is working as casual technical mastri (electrician) under the control of the Executive Engineer (SCD) APSRTC, Hanamakonda, Warangal from 1.7.1992 till the date of ﬁling of the petition before the Tribunal i.e., 31.7.1996. The workman along with ﬁfteen others ﬁled W.P.No.1578/1993 on the ﬁle of this court for regularization of their services and this court directed to continue the workmen in service, if they are in service as on 15.10.1993 and when the respondents orally terminated the present workman on 30.11.1993, he ﬁled contempt case in C.C.No.265/1994 and the management permitted the workman to join duty on 25.9.1995 and since then he has been working and though the wages are Rs.72/- per day he was paid only Rs.37-50 per day from 25.9.1995 to 25.10.1995 and hence he is entitled for diﬀerence of wages. From 26.10.1995 to 31.7.1996 he was not paid wages and though he issued demanded notices. Further, though the workman attended duty from 1.3.1993 to 31.7.1996, he was not paid wages. Therefore, he ﬁled petition for determination of wages payable to him for the above said period. 5. The case of the Management is that the respondent worked under the control of the Contractor and that wages were paid through the contractor upto 25.11.1995 and thereafter, the petitioner absented from duty and the management is not liable to pay any wages. 6. In support of the workman, he got examined himself as W.W.1 and Exs.W-1 to W-2 were marked and on behalf of the management, M.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.M-1 to M-27 were marked. 7. Based on the above material on record, the Tribunal framed the following issue for consideration: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for wages from the respondents for the period from 1.12.1993 to 31.7.1996 and if so, to what amount?” 8. The Tribunal by appreciating the evidence on record held that the petitioner therein i.e., the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, is the workman under the Management of the A.P.S.R.T.C. only and none else and that there is relationship of workman and employer between the workman and the management. The Tribunal, based on the evidence, found that the workman is entitled to the wages for the period from 25.10.1995 to 31.7.1996 and accordingly allowed the claim of the workman in part. Aggrieved by the same, the Management filed the present writ petition. 9. The claim of the workman is that he was working as casual technical mastri (Eletricial) under the control of the Executive Engineer (SCD) APSRTC Hanmakonda, Warangal from 1.7.1992 to 31.7.1996 i.e., till the date of ﬁling of the petition before the Tribunal. To prove the same, he got examined himself as W.W.1 and he deposed as per the averments of the claim petition and also got marked certain documents. Ex.W-1 is the statement of the Executive Engineer, APSRTC Warangal and it shows the name of the workman as casual labourer at Sr.No.4 under the control of the Deputy Engineer (Electrical), Warangal. The workman also relied on the orders of this court in W.P.No.15784/1993. Further on behalf of the Management, the Superintendent was examined as M.W.3. He deposed that the workman and others will discharge the duties at the site as per the instructions of the Assistant Manager and contractor and that they will be paid wages by the Department through the Contractor. Considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner is the workman under the management of APSRTC only and none else and there is relationship of workman and employer between the workman and the APSRTC. This being ﬁnding of fact based on evidence, cannot be interfered with and the contention of the Corporation that the workman is engaged under the contractor and the management is not concerned, cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected. 10. The next claim of the workman is the wages for the period from 1.12.1993 to 312.7.1996. The Tribunal based on Ex.W-3, which is the order in the contempt case, found that the petitioner reported duty to duty on 5.10.1995 and that the petitioner was not on duty for the period from 1.12.1993 to 4.10.1995. Further, based on documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the petitioner is entitled for wages from 5.10.1995 to 31.7.1996 and that the petitioner was already paid wages at the rate of Rs.37-50 per day from 5.10.1995 to 25.10.1995 and that he is entitled for the diﬀerence of wages at Rs.34.50 for the 21 days from 5.10.1995 to 25.10.1995 and further he is entitled to wages from 26.10.1995 to 31.7.1996 at the rate of Rs.72/- per day and thus held that the workman is entitled to Rs.22,452-50 paise. Since these ﬁndings of the Tribunal are based on evidence, cannot be interfered with. 11. Further, it is be noticed that in similar circumstances, another workman of the same depot ﬁled claim petition under Section 33-C(2) for determination of wages for the period from 1.7.1992 to 30.11.1993 and when the Tribunal allowed the claim, the Management ﬁled writ petition before this court in W.P.No.762/1999 and this court by order dated 24.10.2007 dismissed the writ petition. It is further brought to the notice of this court that the orders of the Tribunal therein have been implemented. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not ﬁnd any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS --------------------------------- - 06—11—2008