THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1492 of 2004 ORDER: The 1st respondent was engaged as a Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C., with effect from 23-02-1991, on daily wage basis. On the same day, he caused a fatal accident, while driving a Bus. Therefore, he was put off duty, pending enquiry. Enquiry was conducted, and it appears that he was exonerated by administering caution. The 1st respondent filed M.P.No.77 of 2000 under Section 3- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act’) before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, claiming a sum of Rs.30,552/-, as wages. He filed annexure, giving the break-up. The petitioner filed a detailed counter, before the Labour Court. Objection was raised as to the maintainability of the application. It was also stated that the 1st respondent was employed on daily wage basis, and on the first day itself, he caused accident. It was pleaded that he did not discharge duties during the relevant period. The Labour Court passed an order dated 02-12-2002. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the 1st respondent. An application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act, can be filed, only when there existed a prior determination of the claim of an employee, or where, no dispute exists, as to his entitlement. The petition filed by the 1st respondent was silent as to the nature of appointment. He has simply stated that he was appointed as Driver in 1991, and that he is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.30,552/-. In the annexure, he made reference to the show cause notice and the subsequent proceedings. In its counter, the petitioner raised objection, as to the very maintainability of the petition, on several grounds. It was also stated that the 1st respondent was employed on daily wage basis, and that he cannot claim wages for the period during which, he did not work. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajendra Kumar Sharma[1]. It is rather curious, if not unfortunate, to note that the Labour Court has passed cryptic order in such a contested matter. The order reads as under: “Heard, perused the calculation memo filed by the respondent and found correct. The petitioner is entitled for a total sum of Rs.23,556/-.” The manner in which the Labour Curt dealt with the case is totally objectionable. Not only as to the quantum, but also as to the very entitlement, the petitioner raised serious objection. If the Labour Court felt that the objection is not tenable, it ought to have undertaken discussion and recorded findings, as to the entitlement of the 1st respondent. The second is that the amount claimed by the 1st respondent was Rs.30,552/-, and the Labour Court awarded a sum of Rs.23,556/-, without indicating any reason, for its conclusion. The order in M.P.No.77 of 2000 cannot be sustained, either on facts or in law. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, for fresh consideration and disposal. The Labour Court shall specifically deal with the various aspects urged by the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order. The amount, that has been withdrawn by the 1st respondent, on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court, shall be subject to the outcome of the orders, that may be passed by the Labour Court, on merits. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21-01-2010. KO [1] 1993 LAB. I.C. 1018