( 1 ) QUESTIONING the orders dated 20th May, 1993 of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, made in M. P. No. 187 of 1992 directing the petitioner-Corporation to pay an amount of rs, 40,000/- under Section 33-C (2) of i. D. Act, 1947 (for short the Act ), the a. P. S. R. T. C. filed this writ petition.

( 2 ) THOUGH the dispute is squarelycovered by two Division Bench Judgments of this Court, the Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation in her inimitable style tried to reopen the matter once again, which cannot be acceded to. However, as she has argued the matter, it is necessary to state the facts.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner-Corporationis that the respondent-workman was employed as a Driver on daily wage basis from 21-07-1989 and during the course of his employment he was involved in an accident on 09-04-1990. Thereafter, the petitioner was put-off duty from 10-04-1990 and a disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him for his involvement in the accident. Pursuant to the enquiry report, the services of the respondent- workman was disengaged from 09-07-1992. The question that now falls for consideration in this writ petition would be"whether the period for which he was put-off from duty i. e. , 10-04-1990 to 09-07-1992 has to be treated as on duty for claiming wages or not".

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner-Corporation that the respondent-workman was engaged on daily wage basis. I have seen the appointment order. The petitioner was appointed along with several other drivers on daily wage basis and it is not the case of the petitioner-Corporation that their services were not regularized subsequently.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for thepetitioner-Corporation fairly conceded that their services were regularized subsequently. From this it is evident that the respondent-workman was appointed as a Driver after completing the process of regular selection. Though all the requirements of a regular selection were completed, the petitioner-Corporation being an instrumentality of the State, and -being in dominant position indulged in unfair labour practice in giving appointment as a Driver on daily wage basis.

( 6 ) NEXTLY, after the accident took place, aregular departmental enquiry was conducted against him and his services were disengaged pursuant to the findings on the enquiry. For all purposes, he has to be treated as a regular Driver. This issue is squarely covered by an unreported judgment of this Court in W. A. Nos. 1196 and 1197 of 1994, in Depot Manager, apsrtc Bus Depot, Musheerabad, Hyderabad vs. The Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad, dated 25th day of October, 1994. In this case, the petitioner is a Conductor and he was put-off duty pending an enquiry into the charges pertaining to ticket and cash irregularities. Their Lordships of this Court held that though the workman worked on daily wage basis, he was being paid monthly salary with all allowances. It was observed therein as under:"even assuming that they were employed on contract basis, they cannot be equated to the position of casual labour on daily wages. In fact, realizing this position, the Corporation applied the provisions of APSRTC (C. C. and A) Regulations and the conduct Regulations and held the domestic enquiry after framing specific charges. The daily wage employees stand excluded from the purview of the aforementioned regulations. The fact that the disciplinary enquiry was held against them under the Regulations is a definite pointer that the Corporation itself treated them as employees governed by the said Regulations. If the respondent-workmen were not daily wage employees, it is not and it cannot be disputed that they cannot be put-off from duty as and when the corporation desired. They could only be suspended by means of a specific order passed by the competent authority. Accordingly, the Division bench upheld the order of the Labour court under Order 33 (c) (2) of the industrial Tribunals Act. "

( 7 ) BE that as it may, for the