THE HONOURBALE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WP NO.27731 of _1998 Between: K.Kalappa Son Of Narayana .…Petitioner Vs. State Bank of Hyderabadm, Kanakal branch and another …Respondents THE HONOURBALE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WP NO.27731 OF 1998 ORAL ORDER The petitioner was appointed as a Water boy-cum-Sweeper in the 1st respondent-Bank by a letter dated.01-10-1985 at the Kanakal branch, Pargi Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. He worked as such till 24-06-1992. The petitioner alleges that in the exigency of service he was asked to perform the functions not only a Water boy-cum-Sweeper but also of an Attender and he did perform the functions. The petitioner claims to have worked from 9.30 A.M to 5.30 P.M during the period 01-10-1985 to 24-06-1992. Aggrieved that he was not paid the wages for performing the functions of an Attender during the above period, he filed CMP 1 of 1996 before the Labour Court- Hyderabad under Section.33©(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. This application was dismissed by the Labour Court by an order dated.02-03-1998 on the ground that he was merely appointed on consolidated pay as Water-boy-cum- Sweeper and not a regular Attender and therefore was not entitled to the salary of an Attender. In this writ petition he claims that though he was not a regular employee of the Bank as an Attender he is entitled to wages in accordance with the order of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.33, Labour Employment, Nutrition and Technical Education dated.28-01-1997 and G.O.Ms.No.33, Women’s Development, Child Welfare and Labour dated.06-03-1991 i.e., minimum wages. Accordingly the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay him the wages in accordance with the two Government orders aforementioned. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition deserves to be rejected for the following reasons: (a) The petitioner’s right to claim wages in accordance with the two Government orders above accrued in every month during the period he served as a Water-boy-cum-Sweeper during 1985 to 1992. This writ petition is filed in the year 1998. Three years after even the last date for the cause of action accrued (namely 1992). Even if a suit were filed by the petitioner for recovery of these amounts it would be time barred. It is the settled principle of law that a writ of Mandamus ought not to issue in a situation where even a civil suit would be barred on account of limitation as it would amount to seeking relief with the inexplicable delay and latches; (b) In the CMP No.1 of 1996 filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court, Hyderabad seeking Attender wages under Sec.33(c)(2) of the Act, the petitioner ought to have sought wages as a Water-boy-cum-Sweeper in terms of the two Government orders as well. Such a claim was integral to his claim for wages for the period he worked in the bank as a Water-boy-cum- Sweeper. The petitioner did not seek any relief in this respect. The application filed by him was dismissed. On application of principles analogous to constructive res judicat, the claim urged in this writ petition must also be considered as having been sought for but rejected by the Labour Court; and (c) Except an assertion that he is entitled to wages in terms of the two Government orders the petitioner failed to disclose how the two Government orders are applicable and entitle him to wages in accordance therewith. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 10th SEPTEMBER 2007 *TSNR