HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT PETITION NO. 3349 OF 2000 Between: Vadapalli Satyavathi W/o late Vadapalli Satyanarayana Raju ..... PETITIONER AND The Executive Engineer, Drain age Division and two others .....RESPONDENTS ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to orders dated 22.11.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in M.P.No. 139 of 1992 and quash the same as illegal. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the wife of late Vadapali Satyanarayana Raju, who was appointed as Watchman on 5.11.1969 by the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram and he was posted to Sub- Division Office, Irrigation Circle, Bhimavaram under the control of Deputy Executive Engineer and he worked as such, till 12.7.1990. It is stated that while he was in service he died of lung cancer leaving behind the petitioner herein and two children. As her husband was not given the regular scale of pay nor was the petitioner paid any benefits on the death of her husband, she constrained to file Miscellaneous Petition No. 139 of 1992 under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the I.D Act’), claiming regular scale of pay to her husband and payment of pension, group insurance, earned leave and other amounts to her. The labour Court dismissed the petition holding that the application filed under 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is not maintainable. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: “In the present Case also the respondents are disputing about the status of the petitioner that is about his conversion into last grade service. More over the petitioner is claiming the difference of wages on the ground of equal pay for equal work. In view of the above said decisions unless and until the claim of the petitioner is decided by a competent court it cannot be entertained for the first time under Section 33C(2) of I.D. Act. The next claim made by the petitioner is Rs. 1,000/- towards obsequies and Rs. 10,000/- towards family benefit fund and Rs. 9,472/- towards encashment of earned leave and Rs. 10,656/- towards pension for 18 months. All these claims were denied by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner worked only as a contingent employee and as such he is not entitled for the same. As already observed above since the status of the petitioner is in dispute and it was properly adjudicated by any competent court the claims basing on the said status of the deceased workmen cannot be entertained under Section 33C(2) of I.D. Act. Hence, the petition is not entitled for any amount as claimed by her, since the claims under Section 33 C (2) is not maintainable.” Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. As seen from the record, the husband of the petitioner died while he was in service because of lung cancer. Ex. A4 is the G.O.Ms.No. 184 dated 28.6.1991 and by the date of issuance of the above G.O, the deceased was not in service. Therefore, the contingent employees are not entitled for earned leave, medical leave, pension, group insurance funeral expenses as that of permanent employees. The deceased also not entitled for time scale of pay as that of regular employees, therefore, there is no existing right to the deceased to claim the amounts as mentioned in the petition. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cots. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 02.12.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.