Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Nagendra, Kadapa Dist. 5 Others vs Chairman M.D. A.P. Transco, Hyd 5 Others on 30 January, 2024
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.15272 OF 2010
%30.01.2024
#Between:
Syed Noor Basha, S/o.S.A.Sattar,
aged about 36 years, OCc: Watch
and Ward Personnel Cum
Security Guard, T.L.C.Stores,
A.P.Transco, Kadapa,
R/o.C/o.D.No.6/13, 220 KV Sub-
Station Quarters, Sankarapuram,
Kadapa District, Kadapa and 2
others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth
Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad
and 4 others
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondent/s : Sri. P R BALARAMI REDDY
SC FOR AP TRANSCO
+WRIT PETITION No.15282 OF 2010
%30.01.2024
#Between:
Yerragudi Ramakesavulu,
S/o.Y.Subba Rayudu, aged about
42 years, Occ: Watch and Ward
Personnel Cum Security Guard,
AP.S.P.D.C.L. SPM Sections,
Rajampet, Kadapa, R/o.1-35,
//2//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
Akkayapalli, Near ITA Circle,
Kadapa District and 2 others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Near
Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapam,
Tirupathi, District Chittoor and 3
others.
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondent/s : Sri. P R BALARAMI REDDY
SC FOR AP TRANSCO
+WRIT PETITION No.32917 OF 2010
%30.01.2024
#Between:
T.Vijaya Vardhana Reddy,
S/o.T.Rami Reddy, Occ: Working
as lower division Clerk LDC in the
office of superintending Engineer
AP Transco T L SS Circle Kurnool,
R/o.Kurnool District and 10 others
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman & Managing
Director, A.P.Transco,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad and 7
others
//3//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri. P LAXMA REDDY
SC FOR AP TRANSCO
+WRIT PETITION No.33147 of 2010
%30.01.2024
#Between:
R.Seshanna, S/o.R.Naganna, aged
about 36 years, Occ: Working as
Driver in the office of the A.D.E.Hot
Lines, TL&SS Circle, A.P.Transco,
Kurnool, R/o.Kurnool District and 4
others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P. Transco,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad and 7
others.
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri. N SIVA REDDY
SC FOR APTRANSCO
+WRIT PETITION No.15794 OF 2010
%30.01.2024
#Between:
P.Nagendra, S/o.P.Krishnaiah,
aged about 40 years, Occ: Driver,
Office of the Assistant Executive
//4//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
Engineer, TLC, Civil, Kadapa,
R/o.6/727-2, Senkarapuram,
Kadapa, District Kadapa and 5
others
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth
Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad
and 5 others
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri. P R BALARAMI REDDY
SC FOR APTRANSCO
+WRIT PETITION No.9778 of 2014
%30.01.2024
#Between:
M.Madhu Mohan Reddy, S/o.late
Sri.M.Veera Sharabha Reddy, aged
about 43 years, Occ: Driver, Office of
the Divisional Engineer, Technical,
Circle Office, Kurnool,
R/o.H.No.44/108 B3, Prakash
Nagar, Kurnool and 5 others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Corporate
Office, Mint Compound,
Hyderabad and 4 others.
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondents : Learned Government Pleader
for ENERGY
//5//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 1993 (3) SCC 601
2. (2001) 7 SCC page 1
3. (2011) 2 SCC 429
This Court made the following:
//6//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.15272 OF 2010
#Between:
Syed Noor Basha, S/o.S.A.Sattar,
aged about 36 years, OCc: Watch
and Ward Personnel Cum
Security Guard, T.L.C.Stores,
A.P.Transco, Kadapa,
R/o.C/o.D.No.6/13, 220 KV Sub-
Station Quarters, Sankarapuram,
Kadapa District, Kadapa and 2
others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth
Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad
and 4 others
...Respondents
+WRIT PETITION No.15282 OF 2010
#Between:
Yerragudi Ramakesavulu,
S/o.Y.Subba Rayudu, aged about
42 years, Occ: Watch and Ward
Personnel Cum Security Guard,
AP.S.P.D.C.L. SPM Sections,
Rajampet, Kadapa, R/o.1-35,
Akkayapalli, Near ITA Circle,
Kadapa District and 2 others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Near
Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapam,
Tirupathi, District Chittoor and 3
others.
//7//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
...Respondents
+WRIT PETITION No.32917 OF 2010
#Between:
T.Vijaya Vardhana Reddy,
S/o.T.Rami Reddy, Occ: Working
as lower division Clerk LDC in the
office of superintending Engineer
AP Transco T L SS Circle Kurnool,
R/o.Kurnool District and 10 others
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman & Managing
Director, A.P.Transco,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad and 7
others
...Respondents
+WRIT PETITION No.33147 of 2010
#Between:
R.Seshanna, S/o.R.Naganna, aged
about 36 years, Occ: Working as
Driver in the office of the A.D.E.Hot
Lines, TL&SS Circle, A.P.Transco,
Kurnool, R/o.Kurnool District and 4
others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P. Transco,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad and 7
others.
...Respondents
//8//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
+WRIT PETITION No.15794 OF 2010
#Between:
P.Nagendra, S/o.P.Krishnaiah,
aged about 40 years, Occ: Driver,
Office of the Assistant Executive
Engineer, TLC, Civil, Kadapa,
R/o.6/727-2, Senkarapuram,
Kadapa, District Kadapa and 5
others
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth
Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad
and 5 others
...Respondents
+WRIT PETITION No.9778 of 2014
#Between:
M.Madhu Mohan Reddy, S/o.late
Sri.M.Veera Sharabha Reddy, aged
about 43 years, Occ: Driver, Office of
the Divisional Engineer, Technical,
Circle Office, Kurnool,
R/o.H.No.44/108 B3, Prakash
Nagar, Kurnool and 5 others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Corporate
Office, Mint Compound,
Hyderabad and 4 others.
...Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 30.01.2024
//9//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
Yes/No
_______________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
//10//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917
of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 AND 9778 of 2014
COMMON ORDER :
The petitioners in the batch of writ petitions are aggrieved by the in-action of the respondents in not regularizing their services and have sought for regularization of their services. As the grievance of the petitioners is common and seek directions to the respondents for regularization of their services. A common order is passed.
2. For the sake of brevity, the case of the petitioners is discussed separately. The 1st petitioner in WP.No.15272 of 2010 is working as Watchman - Cum - Security Guard in T.L.C. Stores, AP Transco, Kadapa since 22.02.1993. The 2nd petitioner is working as Watchman - Cum - Security Guard since 01.05.1992. The 3rd petitioner is working as Watchman - Cum - Security Guard since 01.07.1996. All the petitioners were subsequently treated as working under a Contractor from the year 2003-2004. The petitioners claim that their services were routed through a contractor continuously without any interruption. Though, the contractors kept changing year on year, the nature of //11// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014 work of the petitioners did not change, but continued with meager amount of wages. There is a disparity in wages in so far as basic wage drawn by a watchman whose services are regularized and the consolidated wage paid to the petitioners.
3. The petitioners claim that, even in the absence of contractors the services of the petitioners were continued. After issuing GOMs.No.492, dated 08.07.1980 a memo dated 12.12.1980 was issued by the Secretary, APSEB requesting all the Superintendent Engineers to furnish the information regarding the establishment employing less than 20 workman under the Board engaged in such abolished category of employment. The Chief Engineers and Superintendent Engineers were directed not to engage contract labour in the 33 abolished categories. The petitioners submit that six of the workman who were similarly placed as that of the petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking their regularization. This Court in WA.No.1478 of 1999 had directed the respondents therein to consider the cases of the appellants in writ appeal for absorption and regularization //12// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014 as watch and ward of Security Guards. The SLP.No.2392 of 2000 filed by the respondents was dismissed. Ultimately, the services of the appellants in the writ appeal were regularized vide proceedings dated 08.02.2010. The representation of the petitioners submitted in the month of May, 2010 seeking regularization of their services has not yielded any result. As such the writ petition is filed.
4. The 1st petitioner in WP.No.15794 of 2010 was engaged as a Driver in the month of February, 1991 and from 01.04.1999 he is treated as a Contract Labourer. The other petitioners are engaged as drivers on different dates, however, are treated as Contract Labourers working under a Contractor since the year 1999.
5. The petitioners claim that, they are entitled for regularization of their services in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. The petitioners claim that some of the drivers working with the respondents have sought for regularization and filed WP.No.22170 of 1997 and this Court vide order dated 08.11.2000 directed the respondents to consider appoint the petitioners in the existing vacancies or in the future vacancies. The Division //13// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014 Bench of this Court in WA.No.181 of 2001, dated 22.06.2004 confirmed the order of learned Single Judge. The petitioners submit that six of the workman who were similarly placed as that of the petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking their regularization. This Court in WA.No.1478 of 1999 had directed the respondents therein to consider the cases of the appellants in writ appeal for absorption and regularization as watch and ward of Security Guards. The SLP.No.2392 of 2000 filed by the respondents was dismissed. Ultimately, the services of the appellants in the writ appeal were regularized vide proceedings dated 08.02.2010.
6. The petitioners submit that an agreement dated 29.08.2010 was entered between the management of APTRANSCO and the AP Electricity Employees Union, wherein the management had agreed the demand of employees union for recruiting number of drivers against the existing number of driver posts. Letters were addressed to the Government seeking permission to fill up the vacant posts of drivers on regular basis. As there are clear vacancies the petitioners are claiming that their case //14// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014 for regularization of their services were regularized by the respondents.
7. The petitioners in WP.No.32917 of 2010 working as LDC/Computer Operators/Typists. The petitioners are working since 2005, 2003, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2008, 2005, 1997, 1995, 1996 and 2005 respectively. All the petitioners were initially engaged directly, but subsequently their services are routed through a Contractor. The petitioners also rely upon the orders of this Court passed in WA.No.1478 of 1999 and claim that their services are ought to be regularized.
8. The petitioners further claim that the petitioners have submitted their representations seeking regularizations, however, there has been no response from the respondents. As such, the petitioners claim for regularization.
9. The petitioners in WP.No.9778 of 2014 are working as drivers from 1990, 1992, 1990, 1991, 1993 and 2008 respectively. The services of the petitioners were routed through a Contractor. The petitioners claim that they are entitled for regularization on par with the case of the //15// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014 appellants which was considered in WA.No.1478 of 1999. The representation of the petitioners seeking regularization has not been dealt by the respondents.
10. The petitioners in WP.No.33147 of 2010 are engaged as drivers in the year 1999, 1996, 2000, 2000 and 2006 respectively. Thereafter, their services were routed through a contractor. The petitioners claim that they are entitled for regularization on par with the case of the appellants which was considered in WA.No.1478 of 1999. The representation of the petitioners seeking regularization has not been dealt by the respondents.
11. The petitioners in WP.No.15282 of 2010 were engaged as watchman in the year 1989, 1995 and 1993. Their case is similar to the case of the petitioners in WP.No.15272 of 2010 and the grounds raised by the petitioners are also similar.
12. The grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitioners is similar and are commonly aggrieved by the in-action of the respondents in regularizing their services. The respondents have filed a counter and the primary ground is that there is no employee, employer relationship //16// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014 between the petitioners and the respondents as the petitioners are working under a contractor and not directly working under the respondents/establishments.
13. The engagement of contract labour in certain category of establishments as notified in GOMs.No.492 has been abolished including the job profile of the petitioners in the all the above writ petitions. It is also stated that the petitioners are engaged temporarily by a contractor and that the works which are awarded to the contractor are also temporary in nature.
14. It is also submitted that the cases of other workers who were working as watchman were considered for absorption of regularization as per B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 and that the same was withdrawn. Therefore, there was no scheme or guidelines existing for regularization of services of petitioners into respondents/establishments.
15. It is also submitted that the job profile of the petitioners is not essential in nature to the respondents and the policy matter of the respondents in abolishing contract labour in certain categories cannot be found fault with.
//17// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
16. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court WA.No.1267 of 2017 and 410 of 2018. The respondent/corporation has filed the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.
17. The Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeals relying upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, H.S.E.B Vs. Suresh1. The Division Bench has also taken into account the case(s) of similarly situated employees and dismissed the appeals preferred by the respondent/corporation.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the Judgment Steel Authority of India LTD. and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others2 and also State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya Lal and others3 and submits that the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs claimed for. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India 1 1999 (3) SCC 601 2 (2001) 7 SCC page 1 3 (2011) 2 SCC 429 //18// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014 (supra2) would put to rest the controversy surrounding the aspect of regularization of the contract labour. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Dayalal and others (supra3) laid down the principles relating to regularizations and parity in pay.
19. Facts on record make it clear that petitioners are engaged on contract basis as watch and ward staff and drivers. Some of the petitioners are engaged as Typists etc., It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioners are required continuously for the respondent organization. Thus, duties and responsibilities entrusted to petitioners are of perennial nature. It cannot be stated that the services of the petitioners are no longer required and as such there is no requirement of continuing the petitioners either on contract, casual, daily basis.
20. The only premise on which claim of the petitioners is opposed by the respondent company is petitioners were engaged through contractor. This aspect was extensively considered in WA.No. 1478 of 1999. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh, Division Bench of the composite High Court at Hyderabad observed that //19// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014 statutory body should not be permitted to violate the statute with impunity and same would amount in unfair labour practice. The Division Bench also observed that only to avoid the statutory liabilities, the respondent company put-forward an argument that appellants are engaged as watchmen under a contractor. The Division Bench further observed that corporation cannot be permitted to employ contract labour against a regular post especially when the work is of perennial nature. Consequential directions were issued to regularize their services.
21. Similar view is taken by learned single Judge in W P 21947 of 1999, which view is now affirmed and writ appeal as well as S.L.P are dismissed. In fact, the learned single Judge has directed consideration of regularization of all similarly situated employees.
22. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners are similarly situated to the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation, whereas, the relief is granted to only to those persons. The petitioners cannot //20// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014 be denied the benefit extended to the other employees who are similarly situated.
23. The principle laid down by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal 1478 of 1999 has attained finality and same principle applies to the petitioners and petitioners are entitled to similar relief as granted to the writ appellants therein. Having regard to the directions issued by this Court in W P No. 21947 of 1999 which directions have become final, action of respondents in not extending the benefit of regularization to all similarly situated persons and compelling the individuals to invoke jurisdiction of this Court cannot be appreciated. The respondent instead of recognizing the services of the petitioners and extend the benefit of regularizing their services as was done in the case of other employees who are similarly situated are contributing to protracting the litigation. The respondents ought to have acted appropriately in dealing with the services of the petitioners.
24. It is also not in dispute that petitioners have been working for the last more than 20 years; no adverse remark against them is placed on record. Thus, it can be //21// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014 safely concluded that they have rendered satisfactory service all along and service rendered by them is perennial in nature.
25. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption and regularization for the posts the petitioners are found suitable as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt. 30.01.2024 KGM //22// WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 AND 9778 of 2014 Dated 30.01.2024 KGM