THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU SECOND APPEAL No. 844 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against a judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 16 of 2005 dated 12.3.2010 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereunder the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 167 of 2001 dated 17.12.2004 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa dismissing the suit, was confirmed. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant. Appellant laid suit in O.S. No. 167 of 2001 seeking the seeking relief of declaration of two termination notices dated 24.2.2000 got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff as illegal, to direct the defendant to pay arrears of Rs.1,73,480/- to the plaintiff as on 1.2.2001 and from July, 2000 and to direct the defendant to pay a further sum at the rate of Rs.15,330/- and Rs.5,355/- per month and to pass permanent injunction against the defendant from the date of termination of the contracts of the plaintiff till the expiry of contract period under the agreements dated 18.3.1998 and 4.9.1998 or till the termination under due process of law etc. The following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? 2. To what relief? Additional Issue framed on 26.9.2001: 1. Whether the agreements dated 4.9.1998 and 18.3.1998 is valid or within stipulated time as agreed between the parties? Additional Issues framed on 26.8.2002: (a) Whether the notices dated 24.2.2000 got issued by the defendant are illegal and are to be declared as null and void? (b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for enhancement of contract period for further three years from 28.2.2001 and 31.8.2001 as prayed for? (c) Whether the defendant is liable to pay Rs.1,73,480-00 towards arrears from July, 2000 to 1.2.2001 and thereafter? On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-29 were got marked. On behalf of defendant, DW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-10 were got marked. After detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court held that the defendant is not liable to pay Rs.1,73,480/- towards arrears from July, 2000 to 1.2.2001 and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, appellant herein carried the matter in A.S. No. 16 of 2005 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The appellate Court, after detailed consideration of the judgment of the trial Court as well as the evidence and other material made available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present second appeal is filed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant-plaintiff is entitled for increased wages under two contracts dated 18.3.1998 and 4.9.1998 though the agreements between the parties did not contain a clause to the effect that as and when there is increase in the wages ordered by the Government, they are payable to the labourers as per the proceedings of the Government through a labour department. In nutshell, it is the case of the appellant that during subsistence of the contract, there was increase in the minimum wages to be paid to the unskilled labour. The contract entered into between the parties was less than the minimum wages, therefore, appellant is entitled to collect the arrears i.e. differential amount between what was paid to him and what is contemplated under the Minimum Wages Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that these are all pure questions of fact arising out of a concluded agreement and both the Courts below have not committed any error calling for interference of this Court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, is involved in this second appeal. The second appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 19-11-2010. MVB.