Identical questions arise for consideration in this three writ petitions. Hence, they are disposed of, through a common judgment. The persons arrayed as respondent No.1, in each of the writ petitions, are referred to as respondents 1, 2 and 3, respectively; for the sake of convenience.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 were appointed as Winch Operators, on daily wage basis, in the erstwhile A.P. State Construction Corporation Limited, (for short 'the Corporation'), and posted in the Nagarjuna Sagar Left Canal Unit, Khammam, in the years 1978 and 1977, respectively. The 3rd respondent was engaged similarly, as Pump Operator, in the same organization, in 1977.

The Deputy General Manager of the Corporation terminated the services of the respondents, on 6-8-1979. The Corporation itself was wound up, at the relevant point of time.

3. Alleging that their termination is contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), and that several employees, who are juniors to them, were absorbed in the Government Departments, the respondents filed I.D. Nos. 146, 101 and 145 of 1990, respectively, before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal. The petitioners herein were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2 in the industrial disputes. Through separate awards, dated 26-5-1994, the Labour Court had set aside the order of termination and directed that the respondents be reinstated into service, by absorbing them in any government department or government Corporation, with continuity of service and back wages, with effect from the date on which, they approached the Labour Court.

4. The petitioners filed Writ Petition Nos. 2619, 3623 and 2888 of 1995, respectively, against the said Awards. The writ petitions were partly allowed, by a Division Bench of this Court, through separate orders, setting aside the Awards, to the extent they granted the benefit of back wages. The orders of this Court were confirmed by the Supreme Court. Several other employees, similarly placed as respondents 1, 2 and 3, have also approached the Labour Court, and identical awards were passed. The same result ensued before this Court. In some instances Contempt Cases were also filed, complaining that they were not reinstated into service.

5. After the proceedings assumed finality, the petitioners reinstated the respondents, into service. The latter, in turn, filed M.P.Nos. 19, 16, and 17 of 2003, respectively, before the Labour Court, under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, claiming the wages from the date of publication of the awards, till the date of reinstatement, together with necessary allowances. It was pleaded that the Awards became enforceable, with the publication, and there was a corresponding obligation on the part of the petitioners to reinstate them into service, or to pay wages, in the corresponding scales, with necessary allowances.

6. The petitioners opposed the applications filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Act. According to them, it was not a case of reinstatement, straightaway,. but absorption into government service, and the publication of Awards, by itself, does not entail, in the obligation of the petitioners to pay the salary. Several other contentions, such as the pendency of the writ petitions before this Court, difference of the procedure, in the establishment, where the respondents were initially appointed and the department in which they came to be absorbed; were also urged. Through a common order dated 2-9-2005, the Labour Court partly allowed the applications, awarding a sum of RS.2,33,660/-, each, to the respondents. The same is challenged in these writ petitions.

7. The petitioners contend that the applications filed by the respondents under Section 33-C(2) of the Act are not maintainable in law. They repeat their contentions, advanced before the Labour Court. It is pleaded that, with the reinstatement of the respondents into government service, the nature of employment has undergone a change, and no relief can b