IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7395 of 2009 Between: 1 K. Ajay Kumar, S/o. K. Damodaran, C/o. Quarter No. F-35, AP Genco Quarters, Pylon Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, Nalgonda (DT). 2 S. Laxman Rao, S/o. S. Kotaiah, C/o. S. Yedukondalu, Quarter No.F-26,AP Genco Quarters, Pylon Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, Nalgonda (DT). 3 T.A. Rama Rao, S/o. T. Sambaiah, R/o. H.No. E/48, Pylon Colony, Near Petrol Bunk, Nagarjuna Sagar, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P. Power Generation Corporation Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad-82, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2 The Chief Engineer Electricity (O&M), Srisailam Dam West, Eagalapenta, Mahaboobnagar Distrtict. 3 The Superintending Engineer (O&M), Nagarjunasagar Hydro Electric Scheme, Pylon Colony, Nagarjuna Sagar, Nalgonda (District), Pin 508 203. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondents : MR.S.D.GOUD FOR MR K.CHIDAMBARAM (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioners as contract labourers as illegal. The petitioners also prayed for a direction to the respondents to continue them as contract labourers. Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S.D.Goud, learned counsel representing Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In their affidavit, the petitioners pleaded that they are being engaged by the contractors as the drivers of the respondents under separate K2 agreements for a long time. They further pleaded that as the contract period was coming to an end on 31-03-2009, the respondents called for fresh tenders for providing services of driving of the department vehicles bearing Van No.AP.24 T/1304; Jeep No.APL/5432 and Jeep No. AP 24/3932. The petitioners have further averred that as they are sympathizers of A.P. Power Generating Employees’ Union Registered No. E-1535, the Regional Secretary of the said Union made representation dated 30-03-2009 to respondent No.3 requesting him to continue their services till regular drivers are appointed, irrespective of change of the Contractor and that other Trade Unions functioning in respondent No.1-Corporation have been demanding the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioners and engage their sympathizers/ members in place of the petitioners. Apprehending their termination, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents placed before me letter dated 13-04-2009 addressed by respondent No.3 to the Law Officer, wherein it is, inter alia, mentioned that the letters of indents for engaging the drivers on contract basis on department vehicles were issued to three contractors, namely; M.Ankaiah, K.R.Mohan and D.Yedukondalu in respect of the above mentioned three vehicles and that all the three petitioners have taken the said vehicles and performed their duty on 06-04-2009. It is further mentioned therein that on 07-04-2009, at about 8.30 a.m., the Union leaders, pertaining to 1104, 327 and H 67 Unions, along with their members gathered in front of Circle Office Gate, stopped the department vehicles and demanded the respondents to engage their Union contract workers on the said vehicles on rotational basis and that despite respondent No.3 trying to convince the Union leaders to allow the vehicles to be run, they have not agreed for the same. It is further mentioned that the three Unions have given relay hunger strike notice stating that they will go on hunger strike on or after 17-04-2009. He asserted that the respondents are not interfering with the petitioners’ working as contract labourers. The contents of the above mentioned letter clearly reveal that the respondents are not intending to discontinue the petitioners as drivers under the contractors and that there are inter-union rivalries due to which, the petitioners are not permitted to work as contract drivers. Therefore, no writ of Mandamus can be issued to the respondents and it is for the petitioners to avail their remedies either under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or by approaching competent Court of law for redressal of their grievances. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.9694 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th April, 2009 vrn