HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.20051 of 2002 ORDER:- In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus to regularise his service with effect from 24.08.1985 granting all consequential benefits accruing from such regularisation and to declare the action of the second respondent Executive Director, Hyderabad Zone of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), in treating him as appointed on 28.05.1996 as illegal. 2. The facts as can be gathered from the affidavit of the petitioner and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents are these. The petitioner was initially appointed on 24.08.1985 as a Typist on contract basis for a period of two months on a consolidated pay of Rs.350/- per month in Narayanpet depot of APSRTC in Mahaboobnagar District and was engaged for some time and disengaged for certain periods. The 4th respondent i.e. the Depot Manager of APSRTC terminated his services by his order dated 01.07.1986 with effect from the same date. Questioning that termination order the petitioner filed W.P.No.1478/1987 in this court. 3. His plea in the above W.P.No.1478/1987 was that from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 24.08.1985 upto 30.06.1986 he continuously worked for 240 days and therefore his termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act) and consequently he is entitled to reinstatement and payment of salary in the then regular pay scale of Rs.465-845 and he also sought for regularisation of his service from that date. In that writ petition the APSRTC authorities contested the claim of the petitioner about the applicability of Section 25-F of the Act to him on the ground that he worked only on a contract basis and he never worked for 240 days continuously in any year. 4. The above W.P.No.1478/1987 was allowed by this court observing that the APSRTC failed to show that the petitioner did not work for 240 days and directed the petitioner’s reinstatement without back wages. With regard to the relief of regularisation, this court directed the APSRTC authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of clause (5) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.03.1986 and to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services. 5. The other details are not necessary. Thereafter the second respondent (Executive Director concerned of APSRTC) passed an order dated 28.05.1996 and that shows that the petitioner was subsequently selected by the selection committee of APSRTC in accordance with the APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, as Typist in the regular time scale and was posted as Typist in Zaheerabad depot. The wording of this appointment order dated 28.05.1996 would show that the petitioner has been regularly selected in accordance with the regulations with effect from 28.05.1996 i.e. the date of the said order. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the judgment dated 11.11.1993 passed in W.P.No.1478/1987 he should be treated as having been appointed regularly with effect from 24.08.1985 which is the date of his first appointment on contract basis and therefore his services should be regularised from that date. That is the relief sought for by him in the present writ petition. 6. The main ground of the petitioner is that since he was initially appointed on 24.08.1985 and continuously worked for more than 240 days his earlier termination was bad and in fact he had been reinstated into service pursuant to the direction in W.P.No.1478/1987 referred to supra and therefore he should be granted the relief of regularisation and all consequential benefits with effect from 24.08.1985. 7. Counter affidavit was filed by the concerned law officer of APSRTC on behalf of respondents resisting the writ petition. Their stand is that petitioner never worked as a regular employee from 24.08.1985 and he worked only on a consolidated pay on contract basis from some time and consequently he cannot claim regularisation from 24.08.1985. They also pleaded that Section 25-F of the Act is not applicable to the case of petitioner and he cannot claim regularisation on the basis of Section 25-F with effect from 24.08.1985 and even otherwise Section 25-F is not meant for regularisation. 8. It is seen that the APSRTC chose to give the present regular appointment order dated 28.05.1996 during the pendency of another writ petition i.e. W.P.No.11360 of 1995 which is said to have filed by the petitioner and which is mentioned in the counter. Neither side mentioned about the significance of W.P.No.11360 of 1995 on the present controversy. Be that as it may, the petitioner is claiming the relief of regularisation from 24.08.1985 basing on the order in W.P.No.1478/1987 whereas the APSRTC says that that order does not entitle him to the relief. 9. Sri V.Narsimha Goud, the learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly and vehemently relied upon the order in the above W.P.No.1478/1987 and pleaded that since the said writ petition was allowed directing reinstatement of the petitioner he is entitled for regularisation from 24.08.1985. He also relied upon clause (5) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.03.1986 between the management of the APSRTC and the APSRTC employees union which was referred to in the W.P.No.1478/1987 also. Further he also relied upon a decision of this court given in Vice-Chairman & Managing Director vs. N.Ragareddi[1] and a decision of the Supreme Court given in Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. National Union Waterfront Workers[2]. 10. On the other hand, Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, argued that the petitioner was never a regular employee and he was initially appointed on a consolidated pay and since he was not regularly selected with effect from 24.08.1985 he is not entitled to seek regularisation with effect from that date. His further contention is that as the petitioner was appointed after a regular selection by the order dated 28.05.1996 of the second respondent he cannot claim regularisation from 24.08.1985. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon three decisions of the Supreme Court one given in The Divisional Manager, APSRTC v. P.Lakshmoji Rao[3], the second one given in C.S. Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya v. United Trades Congress[4] and the third one given in State of U.P. v. Rekha Rani[5]. Basing on these decisions he also argued that this court cannot give any direction to the APSRTC to regularise the services of a person employed on contract basis and that the continuous service of 240 days of the petitioner even if true cannot give him any right for regularisation under the Act and that at best it will enable him only to claim compensation under the Act in case of retrenchment. 11. Sri Sunil Kumar further pointed out that in the order in W.P.No.1478/1987 this court while ordering reinstatement without back wages only directed the APSRTC to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation but no relief of regularisation was given as claimed by him in it and that even clause (5) of the settlement referred to supra does not entitle the petitioner to the relief claimed by him now. 12. In the light of the above rival contentions it has now to be seen whether the petitioner can be granted the relief claimed by him and that is the point in this writ petition. 13. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition and contentions of both sides have already been set out supra. It may be noted that no doubt in W.P.No.1478/1987 this court set aside the termination order dated 01.07.1986 and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. In the order in the said writ petition this court also made observations to the effect that the petitioner’s assertions that he worked from 24.08.1985 to 30.06.1986 was not denied by the APSRTC and that therefore it was held in the said order that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days continuously and the impugned order of termination dated 01.07.1986 was made in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and in that view of the matter this court directed reinstatement of the petitioner. 14. The question is whether the plea of the petitioner that he worked for more than 240 days continuously would entitle him to the relief of regularisation from 24.08.1985 as claimed by him. It should be noted that Section 25-F of the Act falls within Chapter V- A of the Act and that chapter deals with lay-off and retrenchment. A perusal of the said provisions would show that where a workman is found to be in continuous service for a period of one year as stipulated in Section 25-B he would be entitled to compensation in the case of his retrenchment as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Act. The said Section 25-F or other provisions in the Chapter V-A do not show that the workman can claim regularisation just because he worked for 240 days in a year. On the other hand, if Section 25-F of the Act is violated while retrenching a workman who has worked for 240 days he would be entitled to reinstatement. This is the settled law. It was in view of this legal position this court ordered reinstatement in W.P.No.1478/1987. Hence by reason of that reinstatement it does not follow that petitioner is entitled to be regularised in his service from the date of his initial appointment in the present case. 15. It should be noted here that in P. Lakshmoji Rao’s case (3 supra) and in C.S. Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya’s case (4 supra) the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with this aspect. In para-12 of the judgment in P. Lakshmoji Rao’s (3 supra) their lordships held that the concept of continuous service within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Act was intended for a special purpose of applying the provisions as to lay-off and retrenchment contained in Chapter V-A of the Act and not for regularisation. Similarly in C.S. Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogiki Vishwavidyalaya’s case (4 supra) it was specifically held that working for more than 240 days continuously does not confer any right on a workman engaged temporarily to claim regularisation. 16. The above two decisions would show that Section 25-B, Section 25-F and the other provisions in Chapter V-A of the Act are intended only to provide compensation to certain workmen specified therein when they are laid-off or retrenched when they have worked for more than 240 days and that they are not intended to provide for regularisation for such workmen. This 240 days criteria or 190 days criteria is specified in Section 25-B to explain what is meant by continuous service for a period of one year and it is not necessary to go in detail about that aspect. In other words it follows that this 240 days criteria cannot be a ground for regularisation especially when the rules governing the service do not indicate the same. In Rekha Rani’s case (5 supra) it was held that temporary service cannot give any right for regularisation. In the present case Sri Narasimha Goud could not bring to my notice any rule or regulation of the APSRTC which supports his contention on the above aspect. Thus his contention for regularisation based on 240 days service is rejected. 17. The next contention of Sri Narasimha Goud is that this court gave a positive direction in W.P.No.1478/1987 to regularise the services of the petitioner inasmuch as that was the prayer in that writ petition and he says that since that writ petition was allowed that relief must beheld to have been granted and since that order has become final the APSRTC has to comply with that order. It is true that in the last paragraph of the judgment in W.P.No.1478/1987 the words “the writ petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated as Typist” are found. However at the same time the order in that writ petition after the above words ends with the following sentence. “The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of clause (5) of the settlement dated 10.03.1986 and to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services.” The above sentence regarding the regularisation in the order would show that no positive direction was given by this court for regularisation but it only directed the APSRTC authorities to consider the case of the petitioner with reference to the settlement mentioned in it. The language is unambiguous and shows that there was no positive direction for regularisation and hence Sri Narasimha Goud’s contention in that behalf is rejected. 18. In N.Ragareddi’s case (1 supra) relied upon by Sri Narasimha Goud, this court was dealing with the case of a Conductor who was removed from service after a departmental enquiry, but was ordered to be reinstated with all benefits after setting aside the removal order. It is seen from the judgment that by following a circular issued by it the management of APSRTC placed him below his juniors in the seniority list. That was disapproved by this court and it was held that following the reinstatement ordered by the court with all benefits the conductor has to be placed above his next junior in the time scale of pay with all admissible emoluments. Thus the said case deals with a disciplinary matter and it appears that the conductor there was a regular employee. What should be noted is that when a regular employee is removed from service is ordered to be reinstated with benefits of past service and all other benefits the management cannot disturb his seniority after reinstatement and this rule was recognized and ordered to be implemented in the above decision. The said case has therefore no appreciation. 19. Then in Steel Authority of India Ltd.’s case (2 supra) relied upon by Sri Narasimha Goud the Supreme Court was dealing with the scope and Interpretation of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. One of the propositions laid down in the said decision relates to the question as to how to determine the existence of master and servant relationship when there is a contractor as intermediary. It was laid down that unless on facts it is found that the contractor was a mere camouflage, the workman cannot be treated as an employee of the principal employer. The Supreme Court laid down certain other propositions in the said case but they are not relevant. It should be noted that in the present case the pleadings show that there is no intermediary here and the only plea of APSRTC is that earlier it employed the petitioner on a consolidated pay and it was only a temporary appointment and therefore he cannot claim regularisation from 24.08.1985. Hence the above decision is also distinguishable on facts and cannot help the petitioner. In other words the three decisions relied upon by Sri Sunil Kumar Reddy support the contention of APSRTC. 20. That takes me to the contention of Sri Narasimha Goud based on Clause-5 of the settlement deed dated 10.03.1986. This contention also cannot be accepted for the following reasons. A copy of the settlement deed is filed by the petitioner’s counsel in the material papers. Clause-5 of the said settlement deed reads as follows. REGULARISATION OF CASUAL/CONTRACT EMPLOYEES: The Management have agreed to examine all cases of casual and contract employees in the Corporation which are not covered by the earlier agreement for regularisation before 31 March, 1986 and find a satisfactory solution in consultation with the Union by 30 September, 1986. It is also agreed to examine the Supreme Court decision referred to by the Union on the issue of “equal pay for equal work” in so far as it applies to the Corporation. 21. Sri Narasimha Goud could not point out any recital in the above clause to show as to how the petitioner is entitled to regularisation as of right. The above clause only shows that the management of APSRTC have agreed to examine the cases of casual and contract employees not covered by the earlier agreement mentioned therein and find out a satisfactory solution regarding their regularisation problems in consultation with the workers union. This cannot give any right to the petitioner unless it is shown that an agreement has been reached with regard to the employees mentioned therein whereunder the APSRTC has decided to regularise the employees like petitioner from the dates of their initial appointments. Thus that is a matter of contract or agreement and this court cannot unless it is shown that there is such settlement or agreement give the relief to the petitioner basing on the above settlement or agreement. 22. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that several other similarly situated employees have been regularised from the dates of their respective temporary appointments and placed above the petitioner in the seniority list and therefore the petitioner’s case should also be considered. The necessary pleading with full particulars relating to this contention have not been taken in the writ petition. If what the petitioner says is correct, it is open for him to make a representation to the APSRTC authorities giving full particulars of his claim in that behalf and the said authorities of the APSRTC can decide about the said claim of the petitioner on its own merits as per rules. 23. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the point is decided in a negative and this petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 17th August 2011 CVRK [1] 1997 (2) An.W.R. 69 (D.B.) [2] (2001) 7 SCC 1 [3] (2004) 2 SCC 433 = AIR 2004 SC 1503 [4] (2008) 2 SCC 552 [5] Civil Appeal No.1017 of 2001 (judgment dated 30.03.2011)