THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.21219 of 1999 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order made in C.M.P.No.2 of 1996 dated 8.2.1999 on the file of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act claiming salary for the period from 1.1.1990 to 11.4.1995 was dismissed. It appears, petitioner while working as Coal Filler in the second respondent organization was proceeded with departmentally and he was dismissed from service with effect from 1.1.1990 and in view of pendency of I.D.No.56 of 1984, management sought approval of the dismissal order dated 1.1.1990 under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. However, the Industrial Tribunal, after a detailed consideration of the matter, rejected approval of dismissal of petitioner with effect from 1.1.1990 and consequently petitioner was reinstated into service with effect from 12.4.1995. Thereafter, petitioner filed the present application in C.M.P.No.2 of 1996 under Section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act claiming wages for the period he was kept out of employment forcefully i.e. from 1.1.1990 to 11.4.1995. It appears that during the pendency of the said petition, a sum of Rs.77,981/- was paid to the petitioner calculating 14 days average pay per month as per Ex.M3-internal circular. The Tribunal confined the claim of the petitioner to the payment made by management under Ex.M3. It is stated that wherever an employee is reinstated with back wages, wages were being paid as per Ex.M3-internal circular, which contemplates payment of average salary for 14 days per month and the same was adopted to the petitioner. Since Ex.M3 was not questioned, neither it can be said that it is invalid nor it is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, therefore the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether petitioner is entitled for full wages i.e. 26 days per month or 14 days under Ex.M3. This is a case where the petitioner was proceeded with departmentally and he was dismissed from service with effect from 1.1.1990 and the management filed an application in I.D.No.56 of 1984 seeking approval of dismissal order dated 1.1.1990 under Section 33(2) (b), which was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, it must be deemed that the petitioner was in continuous service from 1.1.1990 to 11.4.1995 and he is entitled for full wages. I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not considered the matter in proper perspective. It has just relied upon Ex.M3. May be, Ex.M3 is an internal circular and it is not challenged by the petitioner, but that itself does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled for full wages for 26 days for the period he was kept out of employment forcefully i.e. 1.1.1990 to 11.4.1995. The approach made by the Labour Court is erroneous. Petitioner is entitled for full wages for the period from 1.1.1990 to 11.4.1995 i.e. 26 days per month. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and C.M.P.No.2 of 1996 is ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 16.7.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.21219 of 1999 16.7.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.21219 of 1999 Date: 16th July, 2010 Between: Lingam Rajaiah .. Petitioner And The Labour Court, Hyderabad-I, represented by its Presiding Officer and another. .. Respondents