THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.13361/01 & 3321/02 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.13361of 2001 This writ petition is filed seeking Certiorari to call for the records relating to Common Award passed in I.D.Nos.254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 274, 275, 320, 321, 322 and 323 of 1997 dated 3.1.2001 and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner is management of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and respondents 2 to 16 are the workmen. It is the case of the respondent- workmen before the Labour Court that they were working in the Petitioner Devasthanam for quite sometime and while that being so, their services were retrenched without proper notice, which is not in consonance and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The termination of their services was in violation of procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of I.D. Act and the same is arbitrary and illegal, as such, they are entitled for reinstatement along with back wages. Before the Labour Court, the management filed a detailed counter stating that TTD has never engaged the services of the workmen and they were engaged by Bankers, who were utilizing their services as and when required. TTD never gave any appointment orders to the workmen. Based on the above pleadings, the Labour Court, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioners is a worker under the respondent T.T. Devasthanam ? 2. Whether the termination of the petitioners is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated into service with back wages? 3. To what relief ? On behalf of workmen, they themselves were examined as W.W.1 to 15 and documents Exs.W1 to W6 were marked on their behalf. On behalf of management, M.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. On a detailed consideration of the material placed before it, the Labour Court while allowing the I.Ds. came to the conclusion that workmen are under the control of management and they are the employees of TTD and the relationship of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ exists between the workmen and the management. Being aggrieved by the said common award, management filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner-management strenuously contended that earlier respondents 2 to 16 filed W.P.No.15738 of 1994 and the said writ petition was dismissed and thereafter, they filed Writ Appeal No.721 of 1997 and the same was also dismissed by this Court on merits. But curiously they invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of I.D. Act. Once the judgment rendered by this Court has become final, respondents 2 to 16 cannot raise an industrial dispute without the permission granted by this Court and therefore the very entertaining of dispute amounts to tinkering with the judgments of this Court in the above Writ Petition and Writ Appeal. Further, the services of respondents 2 to 16 were engaged by Bankers who are utilizing their services as and when required with regard to sorting of coins and notes in the Coins Parakamani and Currency Parakamani and the Bank Officers were supervising the duties of such of those persons who are engaged for counting the coins Parakamani and Currency Parakamani. Petitioner Devasthanam deputes its Assistant Executive Officer to supervise the work of Bankers in respect of sorting of coins and currency. At no point of time, petitioner Devasthanam had engaged the services of respondents 2 to 16 and were never paid with any wages or remuneration by the Devasthanam. There was no relationship of employer and employee existed at any point of time between petitioner Devasthanam and respondents 2 to 16. Petitioner Devasthanam never issued any appointment orders to respondents 2 to 16 or to any other person for sorting of coins in the Coins Parakamani. Only the regular staff of Devasthanam are attending to the regular work as and when coin bags were accumulated and additional staff working in other departments of petitioner Devasthanam were being deputed to do jobs in Parakamani. Since the petitioner Devasthanam never engaged nor appointed the respondents 2 to 16, the question of retrenching them from service does not arise. In view of the same, the Labour Court ought not to have directed reinstatement of respondents 2 to 16 by invoking powers under Section 11-A of I.D. Act, therefore the common award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. In support of his case, the learned counsel relied on the judgments in B.C. HARINARAYANAMMA AND OTHERS V. V. NARASIMHA AND OTHERS[1], BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD v. ABDUL RAHEEM AND ANOTHER[2], MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and FARIDABAD v. SIRI NIWAS[3], M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD v. HARI RAM ETC.[4]. Whereas the learned counsel Sri G.Ravi Mohan, appearing for respondents 2 to 16 supported the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and stated that there was no prohibition for raising a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of I.D. Act. In the earlier round of litigation, workmen sought regularization of their services and no challenge was made at any point of time as to retrenchment. He further contends that TTD is also an Industry as defined under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act. This is a well settled proposition of law. Absolutely, no evidence has been placed by the petitioner- Devasthanam to show that respondents 2 to 16 were never engaged or they were engaged by any Banker. No official of the Bank was examined nor any documentary evidence was produced to show that respondents 2 to 16 were engaged by the bankers for utilizing their services in the Currency Parakamani. Therefore, the contention of the Devasthanam that respondents 2 to 16 were never engaged was disproved. Under those circumstances, the Labour Court has rightly came to the conclusion that termination of services of respondents 2 to 16 as arbitrary and illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, with notional increment, but without any back wages. The common award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned common award and other material made available on record. At the outset, it is to be noticed that there cannot be any dispute that TTD is an Industry as defined under the provisions of I.D. Act. May be, respondents 2 to 16 have filed writ petition and writ appeal earlier and the same were dismissed, but the fact remains that the said cases were filed seeking regularization of their services in view of long service rendered by them in the TTD and that was negatived. May be, instantaneously it has also discussed as to whether the respondents 2 to 16 are the employees of TTD or not, but that itself does not mean that they have no right for raising a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of I.D. Act when their services were terminated abruptly. Therefore, it cannot be said that the very I.D. raised by respondents 2 to 16 are not maintainable. Now coming to the merits of the case, the fact that respondents 2 to 16 had put in long and continuous service is not in dispute. Though a vague allegation is made that respondents 2 to 16 are not appointed by TTD and they were appointed by Bankers for the purpose of counting notes in Parakamani, absolutely no evidence was placed before the Labour Court to show that they were appointed by the bankers and not by TTD. In this regard, the Labour Court gave categorical findings, which reads as under: “The respondent-management has failed to examine any witnesses in order to disprove the contentions raised by the petitioners, especially with regard to the ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ relationship. When the petitioners are contending that the petitioners are the employees of TTD and when the respondent is contending that the petitioners are the employees of SBI and Andhra Bank, the burden lies on the respondent Management to prove that the petitioners are the employees of the banks working in Parakamani Section at Tirumala. It is an admitted fact as deposed by M.W.1 that the petitioners are workmen in Parakamani section and they are under the supervision of TTD authorities at the time of performing their duties as entrusted by TTD authorities. When the duties of the workmen are supervised by the respondent Management, it can be said that the petitioners are under the control and supervision of respondent TTTD, it can be said that there is relationship of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’. As such the relationship of ‘employee and employer’ exists between the TTD and the petitioners. Further the respondent has failed to summon the Bank authorities to prove that the petitioners are the employees of the bank authorities and they are under active control of the Bank authorities. The respondent management has failed to examine any of the employees of the bank in order to prove their contention in order to establish that there is no relationship of ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ i.e. between the petitioners and respondent TTD. Ex.W5 shows that the petitioners are the workers under Parakamani section. Further Ex.W4 shows that the Assistant Executive Officer submitted that the petitioners are sincere in their duties and they may be absorbed in future vacancies in Parakamani section and the said recommendation was concurred by the Incharge AEO. Further, a movement register is also maintained by the TTD in recognition of the services under TTD. The duty period shifted to Tirumala from Tirupati Administrative Office in the Parakamani Section inside the temple. The evidence of W.W.1 reveals that his shift to Tirumala Parakamani duty was in continuity upto 5.4.1991. So, the petitioners have worked continuously without any break for full complete three years. It is sufficient to prove to show that the respondent management has orally terminated the petitioners from service. There is no evidence to show on the side of the respondent management TTD that the petitioners were not orally terminated from service. As admitted by M.W.1 the workman was not given any notice of termination as required under Section 25-A of the I.D. Act. The respondent did not mention any date of termination of service in the appointment order since they were appointed in permanent projected according to formalities prescribed in service rules of appointment and have been appointed on regular basis and were paid timescale and wages. Under the above circumstances, it is to be held that the oral termination of petitioners is void and illegal and against the principles of natural justice. It is a fact that there is violation of the provisions of Section 25-Fof I.D. Act. It is mandatory to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 before termination order in question. In this case, the management has failed to give notice prior to passing of termination order and hence the petitioner workman raised the Industrial Dispute challenging the termination order by the management without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. As per Section 25-F before passing the order of termination, is mandatory. No notice of termination nor offering of any retrenchment benefits was made by the respondent. First priority is to be given to in-service candidates working in any department of TTD for appointment to the post by transfer. While the workman is in service in a permanent working project, terminating him from service without any reasonable ground and appointing new candidates in other branch of the Department is detrimental to the service rules of TTD. Whatever post that is created in any branch of service is transferable appointment and he has to be substituted in any other branch. Subsequent to the termination of this workman, number of new and non-service candidates are appointed in same branch and also in different branches by the respondent’s organization depriving the right of his continuity of service. Hence, it has to be held that the termination of the petitioners is illegal and violative of the provisions of Section 25- F of I.D. Act”. I am of the considered opinion that the Labour Court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and the entire evidence made available on record and thus, rightly came to the conclusion that the TTD is an Industry and respondents 2 to 16 are the workmen working with TTD and their services were terminated without following due process of law, rather the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner have no relevance to the facts of the case, therefore they need not be delved in detail. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. W.P.No.3321 of 2002 The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondents 3 to 17 are the employees of TTD working in Parakamani Section. In view of the findings recorded in the above writ petition, this writ petition is also liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 10.8.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.13361/01 & 3321/02 10.8.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.13361/01 & 3321/02 Date: 10th August, 2010 W.P.No.13361 of 2001 Between: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, represented by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor district. .. Petitioner And Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, rep. by its Chairman and others. .. Respondents W.P.No.3321 of 2002 Between: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, represented by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor district. .. Petitioner And III Additional District Judge-cum- Appellate Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Tirupati, Chittoor district and others. .. Respondents [1] 2001(4) ALD 29 [2] 2001(89) FLR 354 [3] (2004) 8 SCC 195 [4] (2004) 8 SCC 246