THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3545 OF 2002 ORDER: Late M.Gangadhar, was employee on daily rate basis in the erstwhile A.P. State Construction Corporation Limited in the year 1976. In the year 1978, Gangadhar and other similarly situated persons were paid regular scales of pay. However, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.125-3-155. The Corporation was closed and its activity was transferred to the petitioners herein. Subsequently, Gangadhar was placed at the disposal of the R.T.A., Hyderabad. He worked as Junior Assistant and died in harness. His legal representatives approached the Union, the first respondent herein, to seek the remedy of reference of dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, a reference was made by the Union and respondents 2 to 4 to the Labour Court to answer the question as to whether the demand for extending the pay scale of Rs.175-8-200 to Gangadhar is justified. The same was taken up by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, as I.D.No.328 of 1993. Through award dated 30.01.2001, the Labour Court answered the reference affirmatively and held that the legal representatives of the deceased employee are entitled to be paid the difference of pay by extending the pay scale of Rs.175-8-200. The same was challenged in this Writ Petition. While the first respondent is the Union, which exposed the cause of Gangadhar, respondents 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased-employee. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Labour and the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4. The only reference that was made to the Labour Court was, as to whether Gangadhar was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.175-8- 200 in the context of the said scale being extended to the employees, who were engaged along with him. The Labour Court found that the treatment accorded to him in placing a lower scale of pay was discriminatory and there was no basis for it. One factor that convinces this Court not to undertake further discussion as to the legality of the award is that while admitting the Writ Petition on 25.02.2002, interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioners shall deposit the entire amount as per the award and half of the deposited amount was permitted to be withdrawn by the second respondent, the wife of the deceased. The balance was directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit till respondents 3 and 4 attain the age of majority. They, in turn, filed W.P.M.P.Nos.19979 and 19980 of 2004 with a prayer to declare them as majors and permit them to withdraw the amounts kept in Fixed Deposits. Those applications were allowed on 29.10.2004. The result is that the amount covered by the award was deposited by the petitioners and withdrawn by respondents 2 to 4. Even if there is any possibility for this Court to take a different view than the one, taken by the Labour Court, it would be difficult to direct respondents 2 to 4 to refund the amount. There is no direction as to reinstatement of any employee or payment of back wages. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 20th December 2010 RRB