Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Makarla Venkata Naresh Kumar, ... vs The Chairman Md., M/S.Gail India Ltd., ... on 9 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.20293 OF 2004
% 09.07.2024
#Between:
1. Makarla Venkata Naresh Kumar, S/o.late Sri Krishna Rao, aged 28
years, Employee, M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry
- 533 103.
2. Pippala Rajendra Babu, S/o.P.Padmanabham, aged about 29 years,
Employee, M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry - 533
103.
3. Basava Venkata Ramana, S/o.Narasimha Murthy, aged 27 years,
Employee, M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry - 533
103.
4. Venkata Chandra Murthy, S/o.late Nageswar Rao, aged 32 years,
Employee, M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry - 533
103.
5. Vadrevu Ramakrishna, S/o.late Ramayya, aged 33 years, Employee,
M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry - 533 103.
...Petitioners
AND
1. The Chairman & Managing Director (CMD), M/s.Gail (India) Limited,
Bikhaji Comma Place, R.K.Puram, New Delhi.
2. The Deputy General Manager (OIC) and Chief Executive M/s.Gail
(India) Limited, Jetty Buildings, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, East
Godavari District.
3. The Manager (HR) M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Jetty Buildings,
Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
4. The Vasishta Techno & Non Technocrats Labour Contract Cooperative
Society, C/o.Office of the GAIL (India) Limited, Jetty Buildings,
Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District Rep.by its
PPIC/President.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Sri. M Pitchaiah
2. Ms. K.Udaya Sri
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Sri. Kakara Venkata Rao
2. Sri. M Lakshmana Sarma
The Court made the following:
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2020) 19 SCC 811
2. (2006) 4 SCC
3. (2009) 5 SCC 65
4. AIR 2021 SC 4855
This Court made the following:
-2-
WP.No.20293 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.20293 OF 2004
% 09.07.2024
#Between:
1. Makarla Venkata Naresh Kumar, S/o.late Sri Krishna Rao, aged 28
years, Employee, M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Danavaipeta,
Rajahmundry - 533 103.
2. Pippala Rajendra Babu, S/o.P.Padmanabham, aged about 29 years,
Employee, M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry - 533
103.
3. Basava Venkata Ramana, S/o.Narasimha Murthy, aged 27 years,
Employee, M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry - 533
103.
4. Venkata Chandra Murthy, S/o.late Nageswar Rao, aged 32 years,
Employee, M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry - 533
103.
5. Vadrevu Ramakrishna, S/o.late Ramayya, aged 33 years, Employee,
M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry - 533 103.
...Petitioners
AND
1. The Chairman & Managing Director (CMD), M/s.Gail (India) Limited,
Bikhaji Comma Place, R.K.Puram, New Delhi.
2. The Deputy General Manager (OIC) and Chief Executive M/s.Gail
(India) Limited, Jetty Buildings, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, East
Godavari District.
3. The Manager (HR) M/s.Gail (India) Limited, Jetty Buildings,
Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
4. The Vasishta Techno & Non Technocrats Labour Contract
Cooperative Society, C/o.Office of the GAIL (India) Limited, Jetty
Buildings, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District Rep.by
its PPIC/President.
...Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 09.07.2024
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.20293 of 2004
APHC010402832004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3457]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 20293/2004
Between:
Makarla Venkata Naresh Kumar, E.G.Dist., and ...PETITIONER(S)
Others
AND
The Chairman Md M/s Gail India Ltd N Delhi and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. Sri. M.Pitchaiah
2. Ms. K.Udaya Sri
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Sri. Kakara Venkata Rao
2. Sri. M.Lakshmana Sarma
The Court made the following:
-4-
WP.No.20293 of 2004
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.20293 of 2004
ORDER :
The petitioners are seeking a declaration of the inaction of
the respondents 1 to 3 in absorbing the petitioners as
illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
the petitioners 1 to 3 are not pressing the writ petition. The
petitioners 4 and 5 are pursuing the writ petition.
2. The 4th petitioner was working as Office Attender since the
year 1999 and the 5th petitioner was working as an
Attender since the year 1994. The petitioners were informed
not to attend duties from July, 1999 on the pretext that
there is no work available for the petitioners. The
petitioners were engaged on temporary basis.
3. The petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner of
Labour who had convened a joint meeting and admonished
the respondents for having directing the petitioners not to
attend duties without following the due process of law. The
respondents thereafter reengaged the petitioners from
13.08.1999.
4. The workmen formed a trade union and registered it as Gas
Authority of India Contract Employees Union,
Rajahmundry. The Union raised several demands and
settlement was reached with the intervention of Assistant
Commissioner on 15.03.2000. The Cooperative Society was
agreed to introduce and 4th respondent was formed. The
Job contract was awarded to the 4th respondent and the
petitioners were continued as Contract Labour through the
4th respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
payment of salaries and entrustment of work is by the 3rd
respondent. As such, the 4th respondent is only set up to
evade regularizing the petitioners and ultimately the
petitioners were asked not come duty from 20.10.2004
onwards. Such illegal action is challenged in the present
writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
petitioners are contract labour deployed by the 4th
respondent/contractor. The contract labour cannot seek a
direction for regularization with the principle employer. It is
also submitted that the 3rd respondent being a public sector
undertaking has its own procedure for recruitment for
employees. It is also submitted that the petitioners were
engaged by the 4th respondent subject to availability of
work and that there is no employer and employee
relationship between the petitioners and 3rd respondent.
The 4th respondent also filed a counter reiterating that there
is no direct employer and employee relation amongst the
petitioners and the respondents 1 to 3. It is also submitted
that they are deployed through the 4th respondent to work
wherever there is a need of such manpower. The petitioners
claim for regularization on the basis of the memorandum of
settlement dated 15.03.2000 between the management of
the respondents 1 to 3 and the employees union.
7. As seen from the said memorandum of settlement there is
no annexure as to who are the members of the union as on
that date i.e., 15.03.2000. There is a specific mention at
Clause 8.8.3 that such workmen who are not providing
services presently are not deemed to be the members of
society and will have no claim in respect of the provisions of
the settlement. It is not known as to whether the petitioners
were working as on the date of settlement. The statement
showing the contract technicians dated 20.10.1999 and the
annexure is neither attested nor an authentic copy is filed.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to rely on the said
document. The respondents have specifically denied that
the petitioners were engaged by the respondents 1 to 3 at
any point of time. There is also no document which is
placed on record to substantiate the averment that the
respondents 1 to 3 were paying salaries to the petitioners.
The petitioners have filed a reply to the counter, however,
have brought in the certificate issued by the Special Deputy
Collector (L.A.) and Competent Authority, the same would
not come to the aid of the petitioners.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on
the settlement dated 02.09.2021 and supplement
settlement dated 08.09.2022. The petitioners placed
reliance on the certificate issued by Special Deputy
Collector, Land Acquisition dated 07.01.2003, wherein the
names of the petitioners reflect as working in the
respondents 1 to 3 organization since 1997 and 1994
respectively.
9. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits
that the petitioners are trying to set up an altogether new
case after lapse of 16 years by placing reliance on the
documents which are filed along with the reply. It is not
permissible for the petitioners to take an altogether new
stand after a period of 16 years. The learned counsel for the
respondents placed reliance on Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Jammu Vs. Teja Singh1, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has clarified that the Courts must be careful in
ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the
economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its
instrumentalities. The learned counsel for the respondents
placed reliance Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma
Devi2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has amply clarified the
issues relating to absorption, regularization, permanent
continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage
or ad-hoc employees who were engaged and continued for a
considerable time.
10. The learned counsel also places reliance on State of Bihar
Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that it is the duty of the High Court to examine
whether the petitioner who approached the Court has
(2020) 19 SCC 811
(2006) 4 SCC
(2009) 5 SCC 65
established a right, entitling him to the relief sought on the
facts and circumstances of the case. In the context of such
examination, the fact that some others who are similarly
situated have been granted relief which the petitioner is
seeking, may be of some relevance. But, wherein law, writ
petitioners who have not established a right are is not
entitled to relief, the fact that similarly situated person has
been granted relief is not a ground to direct similar relief to
him that would amount to enforcing a negative equality by
perpetuation of an illegality which is impermissible in law.
11. The learned counsel also places reliance on Union of India
and others Vs. Ilmo Devi and another4. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the regularization of an employee
can be only by virtue of a regularization policy introduced
by the employer. In absence of any sanctioned post the
contingent employees cannot be directed to be regularized
when the petitioners failed to establish their case.
12. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties the petitioners have certainly not established their
case for grant of the relief sought for in the above writ
petition. Apart from the alleged certificate issued by the
AIR 2021 SC 4855
Special Deputy Collector dated 07.01.2003 endorsed by the
said Officer on 28.03.2003, there is no other document
which would clinchingly established the case of the
petitioners. There is no document to establish that the
petitioners were engaged directly by the respondents 1 to 3.
It is also not on record in what capacity the petitioners were
engaged. On the other hand, the respondents 1 to 3 submit
that, the petitioners were deployed by the 4th respondent
and the petitioners served as and when they were deployed
by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has also in its
counter submitted that the petitioners were deployed to
work at the 3rd respondent as and when there was some
work and the 4th respondent was paying the wages of the
petitioners.
13. It is also not known as to what was the nature of duty of
the petitioners and in absence of any material evidence,
this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the
petitioners.
14. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that several similarly situated employees were regularized
by virtue of directions of this Court and that the writ
appeals filed by the respondents 1 to 3 were also dismissed
would not be applicable to the present set of facts and
circumstances of this case. It is not known as to what all
documents were presented before the Court for passing
orders for regularization of petitioners therein. In so far as
this case is concerned there is absolutely no document(s) to
substantiate the claim of the petitioners.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed
without costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 09.07.2024.
KGM
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.20293 of 2004
Dated 09.07.2024.
KGM
