ORDER : 1. The grievance of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30831 of 2010 is that respondent- Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers’ Cooperative Society Limited (for short ‘the Society’) is not regularising his services, in spite of the fact that he had put in 21 years of service. 2. It is the case of petitioner that he was initially appointed as daily wage worker by the Manager of APCO Fabrics Sales Emporium, Nalgonda on 03.10.1989 and his services were utilised up to 09.12.1993 by the APCO Cloth Godown and thereafter, from 10.12.1993, he was terminated orally without notice though he completed more than 240 days and also entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is stated to have raised I.D. No. 231 of 1995 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, which, vide Award dated 11.12.1998, set aside the order of oral termination. The said Award was challenged by the respondents in Writ Petition No. 5037 of 2000 and it was dismissed on 17.09.2008. Consequently, petitioner was reinstated on daily wage basis with continuity of service. Here, petitioner brings forth before this Court the fact that his colleagues viz. K. Nageswara Rao, P. Kavitha, N. Venkata Subbaiah and M.V.S. Kusuma, who were also appointed in 1989, filed Writ Petition No. 24359 of 2000 on the ground that their juniors M. Kalavathi, G.S. Annarao were regularised. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondent to regularise the services of petitioners therein on par with their juniors. Petitioner states that he is senior to M. Kalavathi and G.V.S. Anna Rao, hence, he is also entitled for absorption along with K. Nageswara Rao and others. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri J.M. Naidu submits primarily that employees who are similarly-situated cannot be discriminated and his client cannot be denied the relief on the ground that he had not obtained order from this Court. 4. This Court, in view of the averments in the counter filed on behalf of the 1st respondent and at the request of learned counsel for petitioner, adjourned the Writ Petition for impleading Secretary to Government, Industries & Commerce (Tex.) Department, Government of Telangana, by order dated 16.09.2022. Accordingly, vide order dated 26.09.2022 in I.A. No. 1 of 2022, the State of Telangana, represented by Principal Secretary was impleaded as the 2nd respondent. 5. Accordingly, vide order dated 26.09.2022 in I.A. No. 1 of 2022, the State of Telangana, represented by Principal Secretary was impleaded as the 2nd respondent. 5. The sum and substance of the counter-affidavits discloses that petitioner was engaged as a daily wager during 1992-93; consequent on termination on 10.12.1993, he raised I.D. No. 231 of 1995 which was disposed of on 11.12.1998 with a direction to respondent to take him as daily wage worker with continuity of service with other benefits, but without back wages under principle ‘no work no pay’. Aggrieved thereby, the Society filed Writ Petition No. 5037 of 2000, wherein this Court granted stay on condition of complying with 17-B of ID Act. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner was paid daily wage amount of Rs.24,295/- for the period from 11.12.1989 to 30.09.1991 at Rs.28.65 ps. excluding holidays and he was also paid last drawn wages without engaging him till Writ Petition was dismissed on 17.09.2008. In compliance with the orders in Writ Petition No. 5037 of 2000, the Divisional Marketing Officer, Secunderabad was directed vide memo dated 20.06.2009 and accordingly, petitioner joined on 24.06.2009. In addition, petitioner had taken out M.P. No. 5 of 2012 in I.D. No. 231 of 1995 to pay difference of wages for the period from 01.10.1998 to 24.06.2009. This respondent denied the contention of petitioner that services of his colleagues who were junior to him were regularised in terms of the order dated 11.08.2010 in Writ Petition No. 24359 of 2000, since vide memo dated 21.04.2011, they were informed that they were not eligible for regularisation of services in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212, Finance & Planning (F.W.PC-III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 since they have not put up continuous service of five years as on cut-off date 25.11.1993. It is stated that K. Nageshwar Rao and three others were engaged as daily wagers with effect from 01.06.1989, whereas petitioner was engaged as daily wager on 03.10.1989, even as per his affidavit which itself shows that he is junior to the above said persons; he has not completed requisite period of service of five years in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994, hence, he is not entitled for regularisation. No. 212, dated 22.04.1994, hence, he is not entitled for regularisation. It is also denied that M. Kalavathi and G.S. Anna Rao were regularised, for their regularisation was cancelled vide proceedings dated 20.08.2011, which was questioned by the said individuals in Writ Petition No. 23990 and 23957 of 2011, wherein this Court passed interim order that ‘the services of petitioners were regularised in the year 2009 and thereafter, two increments were also allowed to him/her. However, the order of regularisation was cancelled, may be after issuing notice. This Court is of the view that the petitioners can be continued as regular employee with minimum time scale and this case shall not be treated as a precedent for regularisation of other employees’. Hence, it is stated that the said order shall not be treated as precedent in the case of petitioner. It is stated that aggrieved by non-regularisation, K. Nageshwar Rao and three others again filed Writ Petition No. 22287 of 2012, which was disposed of on 10.11.2014 with a direction to regularise their services. Against the said order, respondent Society filed Writ Appeal No. 108 of 2015 which was was dismissed; in view of the same, the services of above individuals were regularised after receipt of instructions from the Government vide letter dated 29.06.2015. According to this respondent, the V.C. & M.D. Telangana State Handloom Weavers' Cooperative Society Ltd. addressed letter to the Secretary to Government, Industries & Commerce (Tex.) Department on 23.01.2016 to issue necessary orders for regularisation of services of daily wagers along with this petitioner. As per the Society, petitioner, who worked earlier in the unit of HLH (closed) on 17.02.2018 on daily wage basis, oral instructions were issued to report in the Office of Divisional Marketing Office, Secunderabad but he had not reported though reminded many times orally. After lapse of 21 months of closure of unit, petitioner approached TSCO Office and requested for re-employment. The V.C. & M.D. accorded permission to take the services of petitioner though he has not reported for duty for 21 months and this office informed petitioner over phone, but he did not turn up. After lapse of 21 months of closure of unit, petitioner approached TSCO Office and requested for re-employment. The V.C. & M.D. accorded permission to take the services of petitioner though he has not reported for duty for 21 months and this office informed petitioner over phone, but he did not turn up. However, the representation of petitioner was considered and he was instructed him to report at DMO, Secunderabad, but he did not turn up and filed Writ Petition No. 21737 of 2021, which was disposed of on 09.09.2021 directing the respondents to consider the representation of petitioner dated 15.07.2021 for accommodating him in any other unit of organisation, if any vacancies are available. Pursuant to the said direction, vide letter, dated 17.11.2021, he was requested to report at Central Office, TSCO, as such he reported to duty on 22.11.2021 and worked till 09.12.2021 for 17 days and thereafter, applied for leave for 18 days vide leave letter dated 10.12.2021 on medical grounds. Since 10.12.2021 to 15.03.2023, he applied for 455 days leave by submitting many leave applications without enclosing medical certificates of authorised qualified doctors. Since 10.12.2021 to 15.03.2023, he applied for 455 days leave by submitting many leave applications without enclosing medical certificates of authorised qualified doctors. LEAVE APPLICATION FORMS SUBMITTED BY SRI V. SRINIVASULU TO THE OFFICE OF THE VIC & M.D, TSCO, HYDERABAD: S. No. Reasons stated Duration of the leave Date of form submitted to the office 1 Medical checkup 18 days 13.12.2021 to 31.12.2021 10.12.2021 2 Complete bed rest 60 days 01.01.2022 to 01.03.2022 11.01.2022 3 Bed rest 122 days 02.03.2022 to 01.07.2022 15.03.2022 4 Complete bed rest 90 days 02.07.2022 to 30.09.2022 02.07.2022 5 Complete bed rest 30 days 01.10.2022 to 30.10.2022 30.09.2023 6 Iil health 6 days 31.10.2022 to 05.11.2022 26.10.2022 7 Iil health and rest 39 days 07.11.2022 to 15.12.2022 07.11.2022 8 Iil health and rest 45 days 16.12.2022 to 29.01.2023 16.12.2022 9 Iil health and rest 30 days 30.01.2023 to 28.02.2023 30.01.2023 10 Iil health and rest 12 days 01.03.2023 to 12.03.2023 06.03.2023 11 No leave letter 3 days 13.03.2023 to 15.03.2023 Total no of leaves 455 days Thereafter, he reported for duty on 16.03.2023 at Central Office and again applied leave from 15.05.2023 to 27.05.2023 in view of pilgrimage and again from 31.05.2023 to 03.06.2023 to attend his brother-in-law marriage, as under: 17.04.2023 to 17.04.2023 (1 DAY absent for duty) 24.04.2023 to 25.04.2023 (2 DAYS absent for duty) 15.05.2023 to 27.05.2023 (12 DAYS leave applied) 31.05.2023 to 03.06.2023 (4 DAYS leave applied) In view of the above, the V.C. & M.D. vide letter dated 19.06.2023 directed to send fresh proposal for considering regularisation of petitioner along with latest position covering all the details of employment, length of service, eligibility and recommendations of the Society for taking further necessary action in the matter. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents Sri M. Sudhakar Reddy reiterating the contents in the counter-affidavit, submits that petitioner is not attending duty since 10.12.2021 till date and he was going on applying for leave on piecemeal basis, as such Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Along with the counter-affidavit, leave applications submitted by petitioner on one ground or the other were enclosed, particularly the one dated 14.09.2023 seeking leave to go abroad and the letters dated 11.03.2024, 02.07.2024 for extension of leave. 7. Along with the counter-affidavit, leave applications submitted by petitioner on one ground or the other were enclosed, particularly the one dated 14.09.2023 seeking leave to go abroad and the letters dated 11.03.2024, 02.07.2024 for extension of leave. At the same time, it has been placed before this Court, the copy of the latest proceedings dated 26.07.2024 issued by V.C. & Managing Director, instructing the Divisional Marketing Officer, Secunderabad to utilise the services of petitioner, daily wager (court orders) in Suryapet SE, Secunderabad Division and report compliance. 8. Be that as it may. From a perusal of the counter-affidavit, it is clear that respondent Society had addressed letter dated 23.01.2016 to the Secretary to Government, Industries & Commerce (Tex.) Department, Government of Telangana to issue necessary orders for regularisation of services of daily wagers including petitioner. Pending consideration, in view of the subsequent developments informed by the V.C. & M.D., TSCO, Hyderabad, the government requested the Society vide letter dated 19.06.2023 to send fresh proposals for considering regularisation of services of petitioner along with latest position covering all the details of employment, length of service and recommendations of the Society for taking further necessary action in the matter. In the light of the same, this Court is of the opinion that let the 2nd respondent-government take a decision on the proposals to be sent by the V.C. & M.D. Telangana State Handloom Weavers’ Cooperative Society Limited. 9. Writ Petition No. 30831 of 2010 is therefore, disposed of. The 1st respondent is directed to send fresh proposals, as required vide letter dated 19.06.2023, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such submission, the 2nd respondent is directed to take a decision, in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter. 10. Writ Petition No. 29957 of 2017 is filed questioning the inaction of the respondents in paying wages from the date of publication of the Award till reinstatement, which is confirmed in order in M.P. No. 5 of 2012, dated 08.12.2015. 11. Petitioner had taken out the said Application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for recovery of Rs.2,90,332/- from the respondents. 11. Petitioner had taken out the said Application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for recovery of Rs.2,90,332/- from the respondents. By order dated 08.12.2015, the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad while dismissing the said Application, observed that the claim of petitioner is under Section 17-B, therefore, he is entitled only to claim full wages last drawn and it cannot be read as full wages which would have been drawn if he continued in service if the order of termination was not passed on being ste aside by the Award of Labour Court or Tribunal; petitioner has miserably failed to prove that he is entitled for claim, ass claimed by petitioner. 12. The Society in the detailed counter stated that petitioner was paid last drawn wages in compliance with the interim order dated 20.09.2001 in Writ Petition No. 5037 of 2000 with effect from 11.12.1998 till his date of reinstatement even though he had no work to be given and did not work; as per the Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. on the principle of ‘no work no pay, he is not entitled for payment of difference of wages. It is contended that as per G.O.Ms. No. 33, W.D.C.W. & L (LAB-II), dated 06.03.1991, G.O.Ms. No. 80, Labour Employment Training and Factories Department (LABII), dated 02.12.2000 and G.O.Ms. No. 116, Labour Employment, Training and Factories Department (LAB-II), dated 07.12.2007, petitioner is not entitled for claim for repayment of difference on wages. According to this respondent, Labour Court-III, Hyderabad dismissed M.P. on 08.12.2015 holding that petitioner is not entitled for claim of Rs.2,98,352/- towards difference of wages. 13. In view of the categorical finding of the Labour Court as well as the averments in the counter and since petitioner was paid last drawn wages in compliance with the interim order dated 11.12.1998, this Court is of the view that he is not entitled for the relief sought in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Writ Petition No. 29957 of 2017 is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 15. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.