IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10832 of 1998 Andhra Bank, Represented by its General Manager (HRD), Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I Chandravihar Building, M.J.Road, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10832 of 1998 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel on either side. This writ petition has been directed against the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No.54/1995. The 2nd respondent-Employees Union has espoused the cause of the workman who was appointed as a part time sweeper at Gorantla branch of the petitioner bank. He was initially paid a sum of Rs.100/- per month and subsequently it was raised to Rs.175/- from 01.09.1989. It is the case of the workman that he has been made to sweep or mop up an area of approximately 1022 sq.feet and therefore, he is entitled to be paid wages at the rate of 1/3rd of the scale of pay of the sub-staff of the bank. Instead, he was paid only consolidated wages. The workman while examining himself, apart from his oral evidence, has also brought on record the documentary evidence and got it marked as Exs.W1 to W8. The management has examined three witnesses on its behalf and also got marked four documents. The entire issue centers around a finding of fact as to whether the area entrusted for sweeping or mopping up operations by the workman is really 1022 sq.ft. area or not. It will be relevant to point out that in accordance with the agreement which is marked as Ex.W5, if a part time sweeper is attending to an area between 1001 to 2500 sq.ft, he would be entitled to be paid 1/3rd of the scale of wages. Therefore, the area, which the workman is entrusted with for mopping up operations, holds the key for the entitlement. It is not in dispute that explanation 2(b) and (c) of Ex.W.5 deal with floor space area and the same reads as under: 2(b): Floor space area (Range): Floor space area (Range) for the purpose of this settlement shall mean the total area described in the contractual agreement entered into by and between the management of the Bank and the owner of the premises including stair cases, verandahs, balconies etc. 2(c): Duties: The duties of sweepers shall include sweeping and cleaning floor space area of the bank premises and furnitures and fixtures of the Bank. Existing sweepers performing duties other than those enumerated above shall continue to perform them. The Industrial Tribunal found that the building plinth area to be 597 sq.ft. and the covered area and the steps to be of 400 sq.ft. area and the toilet area to be 25 sq.ft., thus put together the total extent, which is being cleaned and swept up by the part time sweeper came to be 1022 sq.ft. Therefore, the Tribunal passed an award holding that the part time sweeper/workman is entitled to be paid 1/3rd of the wages for the period from 24.04.1987 to 22.01.1996. The learned standing counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner bank would contend that the lease agreement entered into by the petitioner bank with the landlord of the premises would clearly disclose the area leased out was only 597 sq.ft. area and therefore, the finding of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal is erroneous and unsustainable. I am afraid that the contention canvassed by the learned standing counsel for the bank is not tenable for, while computing the area which is required to be mopped up and this entrusted to a part time sweeper, the same is not liable to be confined to the area covered by the lease agreement by and between the bank and its landlord. The settlement Ex.W.5 enables to take into reckoning certain other areas, apart from the actual area leased out, such as the staircase, the pathway etc. also for the purpose of computing the quantum of wages to be paid to the part time sweeper. Therefore, the area which may not have been forming part of the actual lease agreement but nonetheless requires upkeep and maintenance at least by way of sweeping and mopping up operations are essentially required to be taken note of and that is what has been exactly done by the Tribunal and the same is in accordance with the settlement between the bank and the employees union. In these set of circumstances, I do not find the finding of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal in any manner to be perverse, warranting interference at the hands of this Court. There are no merits in the writ petition and this Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dated:01.11.2007 Dsr