B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 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. ( 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 purpose ofthis writ petition I will examine the case by accepting the contention of the learned standing Counsel for the Corporation that the workman is only a casual labour. The definition of workman as given in Sec. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which includes even casual labour. " ( 7 ) BE that as it may, for the purpose ofthis writ petition I will examine the case by accepting the contention of the learned standing Counsel for the Corporation that the workman is only a casual labour. The definition of workman as given in Sec. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which includes even casual labour. Hence even assuming the respondent-workman is a casual labour, the petitioner-Corporation cannot deny the wages for the period for which he was kept out of duty till the order of disengagement, pursuant to the departmental enquiry held against the respondent which indicates that the respondent is in service till that time. To my mind the words put off duty "or suspension" mean the workman is kept out off duty till the charges levelled against him are inquired into and a decision taken thereafter by the appointing authority based on the result of the inquiry, Hence the respondent cannot be allowed to deny wages to the 2nd respondent till he is disengaged from service. ( 8 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner broughtto my notice the Judgment of this Court in m. Gnanendra. , In Re. reported in 1989 (2) alt 558 . In that writ petition the question that fell for consideration of this Court was whether a notice is to be given before the employee is put-off duty. Hence, this judgment is of no avail to the petitioner- corporation. The next Judgment that was relied upon by the Standing Counsel is an unreported Judgment rendered in W. P. No. 11710 of 1988 dated 28-11-1988 in p. S. Narayana vs. The A. P. S. R. T. C. In this case, Justice Jagannadha Rao as he then was while upholding the action of the corporation in conducting an enquiry though the employee therein was appointed as a daily wage Conductor, directed the workman to seek his remedy before the appropriate Labour Court or industrial Tribunal for other benefits. From the above Judgment it is evident that even a casual worker can approach the Tribunal under I. D. Act of his grievance. Hence I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the Labour Court. ( 9 ) IN the result, the writ petition isdismissed.