THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.1675 of 2004 ORDER The petitioner-APSRTC filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order, dated 28.11.2002, made in M.P.No.90 of 2000 passed by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad declaring that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,983/- to the first respondent-workman towards wages for the put-off period and to quash the same. 2. The brief facts are that the first respondent was appointed as Casual Driver on daily wage basis on 30.04.1994 and posted to Bodhan Depot. On 24.05.1994, while he was driving the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 3672 from Bodhan to Nizamabad, it met with an accident due to hit by an auto, which came in opposite direction, resulting death of two passengers in the auto and injuries to others. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. In view of the said accident, the first respondent was put-off duty from 25.05.1994 to 14.11.1994 and after conducting enquiry into the charge, he was removed from service on 15.11.1994. Aggrieved by the same, he filed M.P.No.90 of 2000 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming a sum of Rs.11,792/-towards wages for the put-off duty period i.e., from 24.05.1994 to 15.11.1994. Through order, dated 28.11.2002, the Labour Court allowed the M.P. holding that the first petitioner is entitled to daily wages at Rs.67/-per day for 149 days including weekly offs, which comes to Rs.9,983/- and as such, the petitioner is liable to pay the same to the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-APSRTC filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the first respondent was removed from service due to misconduct, he is not entitled to wages. He contended that the first respondent filed the M.P., claiming damages after seven years from the date of his removal from service without filing condone delay petition in filing the MP. He also contended that as per Section 33-C of the Act, where any money is due to a workman from an employer, an application shall be made within one year from the date on which money became due to the workman and that the Labour Court ought not to have adjudicated the matter and allowed the claim. Learned counsel further contended that no reasons have been assigned by the Labour Court in awarding a sum of Rs.9,983/- as against the claim of the first respondent for Rs.11,792/-. He further contended that as the first respondent was engaged on daily wage basis and the order of removal from service has attained finality, he is not entitled to wages as per the order impugned. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no right to claim wages during the put-off period and the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) had no jurisdiction, is unsustainable in law for the reason that the word ‘put-off’ is being used in the service matters of APSRTC in case of daily wage employees. If the employee is appointed on temporary or regular basis and is involved in any disciplinary proceedings, pending finalization of the proceedings, he is placed under suspension. The word ‘put-off’ is being used in case of a dailywage employees and – is used for regular and temporary employees as held by this Court in a decision reported in ALT 5586, wherein it was held as under: n The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is also not sustainable on the ground that the petitioner was a dailywage employee and he has no existing right for the reasons that he was an employee of dailywage basis. Though he was a dailywage employee, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, till the relationship between the master and servant do exists. Therefore, an existing right is conferred on the first respondent and no dufrhter adjudication is leaded for filing a petition for claiming a claim under Section 33©, but he can straightaway make an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act claiming wages, which was already decidied as per the conditions of service by wayh of daily wages. Therefore, the Labour Court had entertained the MP and as such, the contention fo the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable in law. o Coming to the aspect of daily wage concerned, no such plea was taken in the counter filled by the petitioner in the Labour Court, however, the Labour court had jurisdiction to grant an appropriate relief even in a delayed cases as having to the record to the nature of jurisdiction of the Act, which is based on the concept f social legislation. Therefore, the said gound is also untenable. The third contention of the petitioner is that the order impugned is not speaking order – Though the aspect of limitation was raised by the Labour court in its wisdom comsidered that the aspect and passed the impugned order. As against the claim of Rs.11,976/-the Labour court granted a sum of Rs./9,983/--- In that view of the matter, -- can be viwed frm the nature of the order passed by this Court which speaks by itself. Therefoe, I do not see any justification t interfere with the order impugned and the same does nt suffer from legal infirmity. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.