THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.27018 of 2003; 5434 of 2002 & CONTEMPT CASE No : 640 of 2004 DATED: 08-06-2010 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao,) Since all these three matters are interconnected and arise between the same parties, they are being taken up together, at the request of the learned counsel on record. 2. Petitioner in W.P.No.27018 of 2003 seeks a writ of certiorari calling for the records in I.D.No.94/2002, dated 26-09-2003 on the file of the Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District and consequential G.O.Rt.No.1976, Labour Employment & Training Factories (LAB-I) Department, dated 14-10-2003, and quash the same. 3. C.C.No.640 of 2004 is filed by the 1st respondent in the aforesaid Writ Petition complaining wilful disobedience in compliance of the order, dated 01-03-2004, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.383 of 2004. 4. W.P.No.5434 of 2002 is filed by the 1st respondent in the aforesaid Writ Petition, inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioner even after completion of nine years of service, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and further direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from 17-04-1998 as per G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Dept., dated 22-04-1994, and pay the salary as per scales. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the 1st respondent in W.P.No.27018 of 2003, namely Sk.Rabbani, was initially appointed on 17-04-1993 as a driver in the Horticulture department on payment of daily wage of Rs.30/- and he worked continuously from 1993 to 13-05-2002. However, subsequently, since his services were terminated, he had approached this Court as well as the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, but ultimately he was directed to approach the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Accordingly, he filed I.D.No.94 of 2002 and the learned Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani allowed the case, setting aside the order of termination of the said Rabbani, holding that since the due procedure, as contemplated under law, was not followed, he is entitled to reinstatement. Challenging the same, W.P.No.27018 of 2003 is filed and W.P.M.P.No.34216 of 2003 is also filed to suspend the order, dated 26-09-2003, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani and the same was dismissed on 29-12- 2003. Aggrieved thereby, W.A.No.383 of 2004 was filed and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the same, directing the writ petitioners to comply with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). Now, the above Contempt Case has been filed alleging wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the order, dated 01-03-2004, passed in W.A.No.383 of 2004. However, it is stated that the daily wages are being paid to the said Rabbani at the same rate. In view of the same, nothing remains in the case for further adjudication nor there is any contempt as such. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. 6. Coming to W.P.No.27018 of 2003, though several contentions have been made by the learned Government Pleader establishing that the very entitlement of the 1st respondent-employee for the relief as sought for and further correctness of finding as to the mandatory requirement of notice under Section 25 (f) of the Act, when admittedly the 1s t respondent-employee has been in service as a driver, appointed on 17-04-2003, and being paid daily wages and having completed continuous service of 240 days he comes well within the definition of ‘worker’ under the provisions of the Act and therefore it is open for the petitioners to raise a plea that the provisions under Section 25 (f) of the Act do not have any application. Admittedly, there is no such notice. In view of the same and establishing the finding of facts, after appreciating the evidence on both sides, we do not find any error warranting interference. Hence, there are no merits in W.P.No.27018 of 2003 and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Admittedly, W.P.No.5434 of 2002 is filed by the very same employee. He seeks the relief of regularization of services by taking shelter under G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Dept., dated 22-04-1994. The brief facts of the case are already stated in the preceding paragraphs. The very same G.O. has been considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in A.MANJULA BHASHINI AND OTHERS v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH WOMEN’S COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER[1], wherein at paragraph No.89 it is held as follows: “In view of the above discussion, we hold that the amendments made in the 1994 Act by Acts 3 and 27 of 1998 do not have the effect of nullifying or overriding the judgment in District Collector/Chairman v. M.L.Singh[2]. We further hold that the policy of regularization contained in the first proviso to Section 7 inserted by Act 27 of 1998 is a one-time measure intended to benefit only those daily-wage employees, etc., who completed 5 years’ continuous service on or before 25-11-1993 and the employees who completed 5 years’ service after 25-11-1993 cannot claim regularization”. 8. Even accepting the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the cut off date prescribed under the very same G.O., the petitioner does not come well within the entitlement, as provided thereunder. In view of the same, it is not open for the petitioner to claim the said relief, seeking extension of benefit under the said G.O. Hence, we do not find any merits in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 9. Further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-employee submits that having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been working only on daily wages, almost more than ten years, he is atleast entitled to minimum wages as prescribed and provided for in various orders of the Government at different points of time. There cannot be any dispute in this regard. Once the petitioner is reinstated into service, he would be entitled to such minimum wages. However, it is open for the petitioner to file appropriate application before the concerned authorities and the same will be considered on merits and disposed of in accordance with law. We leave it open to seek other further appropriate benefits, if he is entitled to, either for regularization or for other benefits, and the same would be considered on merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations or findings made in this order. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J __________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 08th June, 2010 Tsy [1] 2009(8) SCC 431 [2] (2009) 8 SCC 480