P. Adinarayana others vs Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyd. and others

This Writ Petition is filed by 44 petitioners seeking an order, direction or writ more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising their services in the Corporation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently to direct the respondents to regularise their services and to pay all the attendant benefits from the date of their completion of 240 days in the Corporation.

In the affidavit of the first petitioner it is stated that all the petitioners were appointed in the Corporation on casual basis, some of them as Work Inspectors on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,840/- per month, some as Man Mazdoors on a pay of Rs.1,081/- per month and they have been issued necessary identity cards. It is submitted that the Executive Engineer (Civil) Urban has the control and jurisdiction of the civil works in the twin cities and maximum work is being extracted from the petitioners in the Civil and Mechanical Departments by paying minimum salaries. However, they are working with a fond hope that their services would be regularised. They gave several representations to the respondents seeking regularisation of their services and to pay salaries on par with regular employees and thereupon the Executive Director initiated action, but no relief is granted to the petitioners. Hence the Writ Petition.

The respondents filed a counter affidavit and denied all the material averments of the petitioners. It is emphatically denied that the petitioners were employed by the Corporation either as Work Inspectors or Man Mazdoors on casual basis and hence the question of their regularisation or payment of salaries does not arise. Regarding identity cards it is stated that they are issued as per the security norms of the Work Shops. In any case their contention that they are directly employed by the Corporation on permanent/ perennial nature of posts is not correct and they have not submitted any representations to any of the Officers of the Corporation. It is finally stated that the Casual Labourers are paid by the contractor who engaged them and hence the respondent-Corporation is not liable to regularise them.

A reply affidavit is filed controverting the assertion that they were never employed by the Corporation either as Work Inspectors or Man Mazdoors and that there is no employee and employer relationship. The version regarding the identity cards is also denied. It is reiterated that they were engaged more than 240 days back continuously, but their services were not regularised.

Heard both sides.

Sri Viswanadham, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the identity cards containing the photographs of the petitioners and the designations show that they are employees of the respondent-Corporation and having worked for more than 240 days, they are entitled for regularisation though they are called casual labourers or daily wage workers, etc. He relied on the judgments in D. Chamoli v. State of U.P. (SC), 1986 (52) IFLR 147 The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and others, etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and others etc., ; Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Krishna Kant and Others, ; Union of India v. Dharma Pal, 1996 Lab.IC 1610 (SC) and Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana and Others, .

On the other hand Smt. Nanda Rao, teamed Standing Counsel for APSRTC vehemently argued that there is no material to show that they were employed by the Corporation and on the other hand it is her specific case that they were engaged by a contractor and they were being paid by that contractor. According to her, there is no liability upon the respondent-Corporation to regularise their services since there is no employer-employee relationship. She pointed cut that Writ Petitions by similarly situated persons claiming regularisation and payment of regular salaries viz., WP Nos.23459 of 1997 and batch was heard and disposed of on 3-7-1998 by a learned single Judge of this Court holding that the petitioners may approach the jurisdictional Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for the said relief. She also relied on a judgment of Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1871/ 1998, dated 9-11-1998, wherein the petitioners were directed to approach the jurisdictional Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.

I applied my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perused the case law cited by Sri Viswanadham. In almost all the cases a scheme was prepared by the employer and their services were regularised as per the scheme entered into between the parties. The question whether the employer-employee relationship existed or not was not raised in any of them, whereas the respondent-Corporation has denied the existence of relationship of employer-employee in this case. Hence I am satisfied that the cases D. Chamoli v. State of U.P. (SC); Dharwad District P.W.D. L.D.W. Association v. State of Karnataka; Rajaslhan S.R.T. Corporation v. Krishna Kant; Union of India v. Dharma Pal and Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana (supra) are not applicable to this case. On the contrary, I am bound by judgments of this Court in WP No.23459 of 1997 and batch dated 3-7-1998 and that of a Division Bench in WA No.1871/1998 dated 9-11-1998 where similarly situated persons were directed to approach the jurisdictional Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and seek appropriate relief. Following the above judgments and especially having regard to the fact that the question whether the petitioners were appointed by the Corporation or engaged by a middle man is a question of fact which requires evidence and cannot be gone into in a writ proceeding, I dismiss this Writ Petition directing the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and seek appropriate relief. There will be no order as to costs.