THE COURT HELD THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD NOT DELIBERATELY FLOUTED THE ORDERS OF THE COURT AND DISMISSED THE CONTEMPT CASE. THE COURT ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT CALCULATING THE BACK WAGES PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE LABOUR COURT FOR A DECISION ON WHETHER THE PETITIONER WAS A DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEE OR A REGULAR EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO SCALE OF PAY.

JUDGMENT

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner in Contempt Case No.233 of 2017 (hereinafter referred as petitioner), who was working with the APSRTC had approached Labour Court, Guntur by way of I.D.No.344 of 2001 being aggrieved by the termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 21.01.2001. The said case was dismissed by the Labour Court on 07.09.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had moved the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.7145 of 2007. This writ petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Court on 22.11.2013 directing the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner is said to have approached the respondent authorities for being reinstated, on the basis of the orders dated 22.11.2013. As the reinstatement was not being carried out, the petitioner approached this Court, by way of C.C.No.233 of 2017. The defence of the respondents was that a Writ Appeal had been filed against the orders of the leaned Single Judge dated 22.11.2013 and the same was pending before the Court. The Writ Appeal which was numbered as W.A.No.1772 of 2017 was allowed by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench had confirmed the order of reinstatement. However, back wages from the date of termination till date of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge was denied.

3. Even while the Writ Appeal was pending, minimum wages were calculated by the respondents and paid to the petitioner. The petitioner was also reinstated into service.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the calculation of the minimum wages payable to him had filed E.P.No.7 of 2015 before the Labour Court. By an order dated 05.11.2019 and consequential docket order of 17.02.2020, the Labour Court had calculated the minimum wages payable to the petitioner and directed the APSRTC to pay an amount of Rs.8,15,881/- as being the unpaid amount of back wages. The Depot Manager and Regional Manager of APSRTC moved this Court, by way of W.P.No.9520 of 2020.

5. The entire dispute relating to the calculation of wages, revolves on the question of whether the petitioner was a regular employee of APSRTC who was entitled to scale of pay or whether the petitioner was not entitled to a scale of pay as he was not a regular employee but was only a daily wage employee who is categorised as 'Sramik'.

6. The case of the petitioner for payment of back wages and for reinstatement with consequential benefits is based on the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2013. The issue raised before the learned Single Judge was whether the petitioner had been directly employed by APSRTC or employed through an agency. The learned Single Judge had held that the petitioner had been employed directly by M/s.APSRTC and on that basis had directed reinstatement and consequential benefits. The question of whether the petitioner was entitled to a regular scale of pay was not raised before the learned Single Judge and was not answered by the learned Single Judge.

7. The Labour Court, while calculating wages in E.P.No.7 of 2015 had also not gone into this question and had taken the view that since the petitioner was a direct employee of M/s.APSRTC, it would follow that he was entitled to a regular scale of pay and had calculated the wages due to the petitioner on that basis.

8. The petitioner had also placed various documents and material before this Court to demonstrate that he was being paid salary on the basis of the scale of pay and would therefore, be entitled for payment of back wages between the date of delivery of the judgment of the learned Single Judge till he was reinstated. Apart from this, the petitioner is also claiming that his pay from the date of reinstatement should be on the basis of scale of pay and not on a fixed minimum wage being paid to the petitioner till date.

9. This Court, after a perusal of the material placed before this Court, is unable to arrive at any decision as to whether t