Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Killo Hythanna vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.25357 OF 2013
%30.08.2024
#Between:
1. Killo Hythanna, S/o.K.Appa rao, aged 37 years,
2. Korra Kalyanam, S/o.late K.Pandanna, aged 37 years,
3. Vanthala Mohan rao, S/o.Rambabu, aged 36 years,
4. Korra Nageswara rao, S/o.late K.Pandanna, aged 38 years,
5. Korra Narayana, S/o.late K.Pandanna, aged 37 years,
6. Bera Rajeswari, D/o.Suridevudu, aged 36 years,
7. Korra Ramachandra Rao, S/o.late Jagannadham, aged 38
years,
8. Killo Arjun, S/o.late K.Pandanna, aged 37 years,
9. Killo Nageswara Rao, S/o.Raja Rao, aged 36 years,
10. Gunta Arjun, S/o.Hythanna, aged 37 years,
All the petitioners are residents of Chinthapalli Village and
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and working as Farm Labour.
...PETITIONERS
AND
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.through its Secretary,
Agriculture and Cooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Rep.throgh its
Registrar, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad.
3. Associate Director, Regional Agriculture Research Station,
Chintapalli, Visakhapatnam District.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Sri.M.Srikanth
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Sri.Yella Reddy Rajanala (SC FOR ANGRAU)
2. Sri. T.Durga Reddy (SC FOR ANGRAU)
3. Learned GP for Agriculture
4. Sri. P.Govind Reddy(SC FOR ANGRAU)
The Court made the following:
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148
This Court made the following:
//2//
WP.No.25357 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.25357 OF 2013
%30.08.2024
#Between:
1. Killo Hythanna, S/o.K.Appa rao, aged 37 years,
2. Korra Kalyanam, S/o.late K.Pandanna, aged 37 years,
3. Vanthala Mohan rao, S/o.Rambabu, aged 36 years,
4. Korra Nageswara rao, S/o.late K.Pandanna, aged 38 years,
5. Korra Narayana, S/o.late K.Pandanna, aged 37 years,
6. Bera Rajeswari, D/o.Suridevudu, aged 36 years,
7. Korra Ramachandra Rao, S/o.late Jagannadham, aged 38
years,
8. Killo Arjun, S/o.late K.Pandanna, aged 37 years,
9. Killo Nageswara Rao, S/o.Raja Rao, aged 36 years,
10. Gunta Arjun, S/o.Hythanna, aged 37 years,
All the petitioners are residents of Chinthapalli Village and
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and working as Farm Labour.
...PETITIONERS
AND
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.through its Secretary,
Agriculture and Cooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Rep.throgh its
Registrar, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad.
3. Associate Director, Regional Agriculture Research Station,
Chintapalli, Visakhapatnam District.
...RESPONDENT(S)
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 30.08.2024
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
//3//
WP.No.25357 of 2013
APHC010483372013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 25357/2013
Between:
Killo Hythanna and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. Sri.M.Srikanth
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Sri.Yella Reddy Rajanala (SC FOR ANGRAU)
2. Sri. T.Durga Reddy (SC FOR ANGRAU)
3. Learned GP for Agriculture
4. Sri. P.Govind Reddy(SC FOR ANGRAU)
The Court made the following:
//4//
WP.No.25357 of 2013
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.25357 of 2013
ORDER :
The petitioners are seeking the extension of benefit of
G.O.Ms.No.286, dated 08.10.2008. The said GO is issued
extending the monetary benefits equivalent to the time scale to all
NMRs working before the cutoff date of 25.11.1993.
2. The petitioners are working as Farm Labour and they are working
with the respondent No.2 prior to 25.11.1993. All the petitioners
were in service as casual farm labour till January, 1996. The
petitioners were engaged under the name of a Contract Labour
thereafter. The 1st respondent issued GOMs.No.286, dated
08.10.2008 granting minimum time scale + DA + HRA.
3. The respondents did not extend the benefit of the said GO to
several NMR workers though they were working before the cutoff
date i.e., 25.11.1993. The respondents have taken a stand that
there were breaks in services of the employees and denied
extension of the benefits under GOMs.No.286, dated 08.10.2008.
Several employees approached this Court in a batch of writ
petitions WP.No.28438 of 2008 and batch and WP.No.5650 of
2009. This Court vide order dated 06.07.2012 considered the case
//5//
of the petitioners therein and held that the action of the
respondents was not legal in denying the benefit of the GO to the
petitioners therein on account of the deliberately set up artificial
breaks in the service.
4. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the respondents
have implemented the judgment passed in the batch of writ
petitions to all the petitioners therein on 09.11.2012. It is also
submitted that the petitioners stand on the similar footing,
however, the petitioners could not approach this Court on account
of their financial constraints at that point of time.
5. The non-extension of the benefit of GOMS.No.286 to the
petitioners selectively ignoring them and extending the benefit of
the GO to only of those employees who approached the Court is
challenged as an arbitrary act by the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
6. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their counter submit that all the
petitioners were engaged as casual labour in the year 1993. It is
stated that all the petitioners seized to function as casual labour
with effect from 30.06.1995. The learned standing counsel for the
2nd respondent submits that the 1st respondent has issued
GOMs.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 facilitating regularization and
//6//
absorption of daily wage/NMR or consolidated pay workers. The
condition precedent for regularization of NMR/daily wage workers
was that they should have work for a continuous period of five
years and continuing as on 25.11.1993. It is submitted that several
NMR workers/casual labour could not be regularized due to non-
availability of sanctioned posts. It is also stated that the 2 nd
respondent has not sanctioned minimum time scale to some of the
casual labourers who were already working as casual labour and
who were on the muster rolls as on the date of issue of GO due to
break in service in the past.
7. The learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that
the petitioners cannot seek applicability of the judgment passed by
this Court in WP.No.5650 of 2009 and batch. It is submitted that
minimum time scale was extended only to those employees who
were on muster rolls as on 08.10.2008. It is submitted that the
petitioners are contract labour working under a contractor and it is
the contractor who deploys them in different institutions wherever
there is a requirement of work. As such, the claim of petitioners for
extension of time scale for employees working under a contractor
ought not to be considered. Reliance is placed on the extract of
the ledger of Employees Provident Fund Organization wherein the
establishment Globe Detective Private Agency Private Limited has
//7//
been complying the relevant provisions of the Provident Fund Act.
The 2nd respondent also places reliance on an agreement dated
01.11.2017 entered between the 2nd respondent and Globle
Detective Agency Private Limited. An agreement dated
04.10.2023 entered between the 2nd respondent and one Smt.Alla
Lakshmi, Proprietor of Venkata Sai Enterprises, Anakapalli,
whereby the petitioners are stated to be working under the said
contractor.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners in reply submits that the
petitioners are essentially farm labour who assist as Farm Labour
in the Agricultural Research Work. The nature of work of the
petitioners continued to be that of farm labour since 1993
onwards.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
nature of work of the petitioners did not change from the date of
their initial engagement. Attention of the Court is drawn to the
proceedings issued vide ROC.No.B/708/2006, dated 13.10.2006.
Whereby, the 4th respondent addressed the said proceedings to
the 2nd respondent. Bringing to the attention of the 2nd respondent
the representations of the farm labourers seeking appropriate
instructions to address the concerns of farm labour.
//8//
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on State
of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others1, and draws
the attention of the Court para Nos.58 and 60 reads as follows ;
"58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to
determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour.
An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be
paid less than another, who performs the same duties
and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state.
Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at
the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is
compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so
voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to
his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at
the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his
integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would
suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser
wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to
others similarly situate, constitutes an act of
exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a
domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is
oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels
involuntary subjugation.
60. Having traversed the legal parameters with
reference to the application of the principle of 'equal
pay for equal work', in relation to temporary
employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc
appointees, employees appointed on casual basis,
contractual employees and the like), the sole factor
that requires our determination is, whether the
concerned employees (before this Court), were
rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were
being discharged by regular employees, holding the
same/corresponding posts. This exercise would
require the application of the parameters of the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' summarized by
us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the
instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not
(2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148
//9//
difficult for us to record the factual position. We say
so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned
counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the
temporary employees in the present bunch of
appeals, were appointed against posts which were
also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It
was also accepted, that during the course of their
employment, the concerned temporary employees
were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and
responsibilities, which at some point in time, were
assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular
employees holding substantive posts, were also
posted to discharge the same work, which was
assigned to temporary employees, from time to time.
There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the
duties and responsibilities discharged by the
temporary employees in the present set of appeals,
were the same as were being discharged by regular
employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that
the respondent-employees did not possess the
qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular
basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that
any of the temporary employees would not be entitled
to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by
us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no
doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
would be applicable to all the concerned temporary
employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim
wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of
regularly engaged Government employees, holding
the same post".
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the
petitioners' services as farm labour are routed through a
contractor their nature of work is similar to that of other temporary
employees/casual employees/NMR workers who are extended the
benefit of GOMS.No.286.
//10//
12. The issue for consideration is whether the contract labour working
under a contractor would be entitled for claiming minimum time
scale of an employee working in an organization other than that of
the contractor.
13. A distinction between the nature of work between the work of a
contract labour and casual labour may not be of relevance. The
distinction between the contract labour and casual labour can be
tabulated as follows ;
S.No. Contract Labour Casual Labour
1. Contract Labour are hired Casual Labour are
through a contractor or hired on ad-hoc basis.
agency
2. Contract Labour have Casual labour have
some job security as they limited job security as
are hired for a specific their services can be
project or a specified terminated easily.
duration
3. Contract labour would be Casual labour cannot
entitled for some benefits claim any paid leave
like minimum wage, or holidays. They
workers compensation, cannot expect social
working conditions and security.
other facilities.
//11//
4. Contract labour may have Casual labour have
more defined working un-certained working
conditions, working hours conditions, working
and wages as specified by hours and wages.
the contractor
14. The above tabulation indicates that contract labour and casual
labour may perform similar work, their employment status, rights
and benefits differ significantly.
15. Coming to the case on hand, the petitioners are engaged through
a contractor under the name and style "Globe Detective Agency
Private Limited". The agreement dated 15.09.2017 indicates that
the said agency is engaged in the business of providing
manpower services. The nature of work or services of the said
agency do not indicate extension of manpower solutions in the
agreement.
16. The second agreement dated 04.10.2023 entered with one
Smt.Alla Lakshmi, Proprietor of Venkata Sai Enterprises. Both the
agreements do not indicate the registration status of the contractor
under the Contract Labour Act, 1970. The agreements would lend
credence to the claim of the petitioners that the contractors were
set up only for the purpose of denying the minimum time scale to
the petitioners.
//12//
17. The petitioners were engaged through a contractor from the year
1993 onwards. The 1st respondent issued GOMs.No.286 in the
year 2008. The 2nd respondent extended the benefit of
GOMs.No.286 to those casual labour who are on the rolls of the
2nd respondent on casual basis. The issue considered by this
Court in batch of writ petitions referred above is with respect to the
artificial break in re-engagement of those casual labour. This
Court in the common judgment directed the 2nd respondent to
extend the benefit of GOMs.No.286 irrespective of the artificial
breaks in their service.
18. This Court is inconsonance with the submissions of the learned
standing counsel for the respondents on the aspect of
inapplicability of the judgment to the facts of this case.
19. The petitioners have not established the employer and employee
relationship in the present case. The nature of work of casual
employees, if is similar to that of the regularized employees, such
casual employees can be granted the benefit of minimum time
scale. However, the petitioners are under a contractor and as
such, they would come within the definition of Contract Labour.
The law on the aspect of extension of time scale to the employees
engaged through a contractor is crystalline. The petitioners would
//13//
not be entitled for extension of benefit of GOMs.No.286, dated
08.10.2008.
20. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 30.08.2024.
LR Copy to be marked.
B/o.KGM
//14//
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.25357 of 2013
Dated 30.08.2024
KGM
