KAGITALA SAMBASIVA RAO Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions of fact and law arise in these two writ petitions. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners were engaged as Cleaners/Sweepers in May, 1989 by the Gannavaram Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C (for short 'the Corporation'). Alleging that their services were orally terminated, on 1.7.1992, they approached the Labour Court, Guntur, by filing ID Nos.280 and 282 of 1992; along with two other similarly situated candidates. Awards were passed by the Labour Court on 16.7.1997, holding that the termination is contrary to law, and directed the respondents 2 and 3 (for short 'the respondent') to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. THE awards were upheld by this Court.

(3.) SRI M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the termination of the services of the petitioners was set aside by the Labour Court, granting relief of reinstatement into service with attendant benefits, back wages and continuity of service, and that the awards were upheld by this Court. He contends that the petitioners became entitled to be paid the wages, that are applicable to the post of Cleaner, and there was no justification for the respondents in paying meagre amount, that too, on piece rate basis. Placing reliance upon certain precedents, learned Counsel submits that it is competent for a Labour Court to grant relief in terms of the Minimum Wages Act (for short 'the M.W. Act'), in exercise of power under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D. Act')