The Management Of Metropolitan ... vs The Union Of Water Supply And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 269 Tel

                                       1



      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                                     AND

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                        WRIT APPEAL Nos.15 and 22 of 2022

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

01.           Since the issue involved in both the writ appeals is one

and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way

of this common order.

02.           For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.A.No.15 of

2022 are hereunder discussed.

03.           W.A.No.15 of 2022 is filed aggrieved by the order

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16733 of 2021, dated

30.01.2020.

04.           Appellant is the Management of Metropolitan Water

Supply & Sewerage Board. It has been contended by the appellant

that the 1st respondent has raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer in respect of two employees viz., A.Preman Pillai and

M.Chellaiah for regularization of their services as the said workers

were continuously working with the appellant since 1991. The

Conciliation Officer had initiated conciliation proceedings and

when no settlement was entered into between the 1st respondent

and the appellant, the Conciliation Officer had submitted a failure

report to the appropriate Government and the appropriate

Government has referred the dispute to the Labour Court-II,

Hyderabad, under Section 10 (1) (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for adjudication of the dispute vide G.O.Rt.No.2700, dated

30.09.1997 and the following reference was made before the Labour

Court:

"Whether the Management of Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board is justified in denying the regularization of services of Sri M.Chellaiah and A.Preman Pillai ignoring the assurance given by the Chief General Manager (Projects) at the time of drafting into the Board. If not, to what relief the said workers are entitled to."

The said reference was numbered as I.D.No.88 of 1997 and the

appellant had contended that the Labour Court had erroneously

passed the Award in favour of the 1st respondent on 20.10.2000 in

I.D.No.88 of 1997. It has been further contended by the appellant

that the workmen in question were never employed by the appellant

and they were employed by M/s.Best & Crompton Engineering

Limited and there is no master and servant relationship between the

workmen and the appellant. Challenging the said Award passed by

the Labour Court, the appellant has filed W.P.No.16733 of 2001.

The Labour Court had granted consequential relief to the workmen

in M.P.No.7 of 2003 dated 13.04.2004. Challenging the orders in

M.P.No.7 of 2003, W.P.No.16343 of 2004 was filed before this

Court and this Court dismissed the said writ petitions vide common

order dated 30.01.2020.

05. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended

that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the workmen

in question were never employed by the appellant and there is no

master and servant relationship between the appellant and the

workmen and the said workmen were employed by M/s.Best &

Crompton Engineering Limited and that the Labour Court had

exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the regularization of services of

the workmen in question. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed

in these writ appeals by setting aside the order passed in I.D.No.88

of 1997, dated 20.10.2000 and also order passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.Nos.16733 of 2001 and 16343 of 2004.

06. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent

contended that the workmen in question were engaged

continuously from 1991 by the appellant and it is true that the

workmen were initially engaged by M/s.Best & Crompton

Engineering Limited during 1981 and 1980 respectively, but from

31.03.1991, the workmen in question were continuously working

with the appellant and the workmen have rendered more than five

years of service at the time of raising the Industrial Dispute.

Learned counsel further contended that the appellant has

regularized several other similarly situated persons except these two

workmen, who were denied regularization and that the 1st

respondent has raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and

when the conciliation talks have failed, failure report was submitted

to the Government and the Government has referred the dispute to

the Labour Court and the Labour Court after examining the entire

case and based upon the evidence which was led before it, has

rightly directed the appellant to regularize the services of the

workmen and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly

dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant. Hence, there are

no merits in these writ appeals and they are liable to be dismissed.

07. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

leaned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the

Labour Court has given a specific finding that the workmen in

question were working with the appellant from 1991 onwards and

hence, they are entitled for regularization of their services on par

with the similarly situated persons. Further, the Chief General

Manager (Projects) has given assurance that the services of the two

workmen would be regularized as they were engaged on daily wage

basis from 01.04.1991 and the appellant was paying wages to the

workmen and hence, the appellant cannot deny that the workmen

are not directly employed by it. The Labour Court has also taken

into account the fact that the officers of the appellant has

recommended the case of the two workmen for regularization of

their services. When the Officers of the appellant has recommended

the cases of the two workmen in question for regularization of their

services, the appellant cannot contend that there is no master and

servant relationship between appellant and the workmen.

Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly passed Award in favour of

two workmen directing the appellant to regularize their services,

and hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ

petitions.

Learned Single Judge, during the course of hearing, has

specifically posed a question to the appellant as to what action has

been initiated against the Chief General Manager for

un-authorizedly appointing these two workmen. But the appellant

could not place any evidence on record to show that what action

has been taken against the Chief General Manager for employing

these two workmen. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to

interfere with the common order passed by the learned Single Judge

and Writ Appeal No.15 of 2022 is liable to be dismissed.

08. W.A.No.22 of 2022 is filed against the very same

common order dated 30-01-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P.No.16343 of 2001, which was filed challenging the order

passed by the Labour Court in M.P.No.7 of 2003 in I.D.No.88 of

1997, dated 13.4.2004 seeking wages. Since W.A.No.15 of 2022 is

being dismissed, the consequential relief granted in favour of the

workmen by the Labour Court-II in M.P.No.7 of 2003 in

I.D.No.88 of 1997, dated 13.04.2004, shall stand confirmed and

accordingly, W.A.No.22 of 2022 also stands dismissed.

09. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed.

____________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

Date: 27.01.2022 rkk