THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.17130, 17138, 17333, 17646, 17669, 17671, 17699 & 17796 OF 2001 Date. 25-11-2010 WRIT PETITION No.17130 OF 2001 Between: The APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Tandur Depot, Ranga Reddy District. - - - Petitioner. AND Mohd. Ghousuddin, Cleaner, APSRTC, E. No.271704, Tandur Depot. - - - Respondent. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.17130, 17138, 17333, 17646, 17669, 17671, 17699 & 17796 OF 2001 COMMON ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the APSRTC), assails the orders dated 31-01-2001 passed by the Labour Court - I, Hyderabad, in individual petitions filed by its workmen under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘ the Act of 1947’). By the said orders, the Labour Court directed the APSRTC to pay the difference of wages to these workmen for the periods covered by their appointment as contingent workers up to the date of their regular appointment. This Court passed interim orders directing the APSRTC to deposit half the amounts awarded by the Labour Court. In most of the cases, the workmen were also allowed to withdraw the amounts so deposited. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, contends that the petitions filed by the workmen were not maintainable under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947. It is his case that the entitlement of the workmen to claim such wages was disputed and therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the applications under the said provision. It is however not in dispute that the APSRTC suffered the awards passed by the Labour Court in the Industrial Disputes raised by these workmen under Section 2-A (2) of the Act of 1947, whereby it was directed to prepare a panel of cleaners on the basis of the qualifications, length of service and other relevant aspects and appoint them on priority basis in the posts that arise in Golconda and Bhagyanagar Region Circles. The APSRTC was further directed to make fresh appointments only after exhausting the petitioners in these individual petitions. These awards became final as the APSRTC failed in its attempt to challenge the same before this Court. Thereafter, it was only after filing of Execution Petitions by these workmen that the APSRTC chose to appoint them, albeit, as contingent workers on daily wages. Subsequently, they were absorbed on permanent basis. The workmen therefore filed the subject petitions under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 claiming the difference of wages for the periods that they were made to work as contingent workers. It was their case that they were entitled to be appointed as regular cleaners pursuant to the awards passed by the Labour Court in the individual IDs filed by them and they were therefore entitled to the difference of wages which resulted from their being paid daily wages after being appointed as contingent workers. The Labour Court, taking note of the afore stated facts, noticed that the APSRTC’s own witness (MW-1) admitted to the fact that the workmen, though they were appointed as contingent workers, actually worked as cleaners. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court and held that the workmen would be entitled to the difference of wages on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It accordingly directed the APSRTC to pay the workmen the difference of wages for the periods in question. Sri M. Kotaiah, learned counsel appearing for the workmen in most of these cases, supported the orders of the Labour Court and submitted that the same did not warrant interference by this Court as the Labour Court had exercised the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 correctly. The argument of Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, that the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the subject petitions under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947 cannot be countenanced. The entitlement of the workmen to claim the difference of wages was clearly based upon the awards passed by the Labour Court in their favour in the individual IDs filed by them. Once the APSRTC was directed thereunder to appoint these workmen to the posts of cleaners, it was not proper on its part to appoint them as contingent workers and extract the work of cleaners from them. It appears that the APSRTC resorted to this step because of the execution proceedings instituted against it. Be that as it may, such a procedure was not sanctioned by the awards of the Labour Court which had become final. The entitlement of the workmen to claim appointment on regular basis to the posts of cleaners therefore stood crystallized under the said awards. As they were denied such appointment in the first instance and were made to work as contingent workers on daily wage basis for the periods in question, they were clearly entitled to claim the difference of wages on the basis of the awards. This claim was thus maintainable under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of 1947. The contention of the APSRTC to the contra is manifestly without basis. The orders of the Labour Court therefore do not warrant interference by this Court. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. November 25, 2010. Dsh.