IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26728 of 1999 Between: S. Khader Babu S/o Khasim Saheb, at Tiruvuru Depot, R/o. Tiruvuru, Krishna District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Rep. by its Managing Director, The A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad , Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Krishna Region at Vijayawada, 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tiruvuru Depot, Tiruvuru, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents is not regularizing my services though I was reinstated into service vide order dt. 21/06/1996 in pursuance of the Labour Court award in ID.No.90/90 and completed nearly 3.5 years of service in the Corporation, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against to the principles of natural Justice and as such liable to be set aside with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to regularise the service of the petitioner forthwith with notional seniority along with consequential beneﬁts and to pay the arrears of wages forthwith in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing his services after his reinstatement pursuant to the award of the Labour Court, Guntur dated 15-12-1985 in I.D.No.90 of 1990 as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner was initially engaged as a Coach Builder on 21-01-1980 in the respondent Corporation and posted to Tiruvuru Depot in Krishna District. It is stated that when his services were terminated from 05-08-1982 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he raised an industrial dispute by way of I.D.No.90 of 1990 before the Labour Court Guntur, which, by award dated 15-12-1985, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without backwages. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though there is a direction by the Labour Court for his reinstatement with continuity of service, but, however, his services were not regularized and he is being continued on temporary basis. It is stated that he was reinstated on 21-06-1996 and he is being continued since then. 4. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was engaged on 21-01-1980, to meet the exigency of work, due to the non- availability of workers. It is stated that his services were utilized as and when there was work and as he was not appointed against any vacancy, the question of regularization of his services does not arise. It is further stated that as per the eligibility criteria notiﬁed for the post of Coach Builder/Artisan, one must have passed I.T.I. course and as the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualiﬁcation, he is not entitled to be regularized. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as the petitioner has completed more than 12 years of service and he has been engaged continuously, he is entitled to be regularized. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey[1], wherein it is observed that the petitioners therein had put in about 22 years of service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularization is denied after such a long period of service. 7. On the other hand, it is contended by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation that as the petitioner was not appointed to any post, he is not entitled for any regularization. He further submits that as the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualiﬁcation for holding the post of Coach Builder, i.e. I.T.I., he cannot be regularized. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., Vs. Ashok Ranghba Ambre[2]. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court, while setting aside the positive directions issued by the High Court for absorption of the respondent therein, has directed to absorb him, taking into account the service rendered by him from the year 1984. It was further observed that if there are statutory rules with regard to minimum educational qualiﬁcations, it is open for the Corporation therein to insist compliance of such rules/administrative instructions/guidelines and if there is a power with the Corporation for relaxation of the rules, the claim of the employee may be considered. 8. Coming to the case on hand, the petitioner was not appointed against any vacancy. No procedure was followed and no notiﬁcation was issued by the Corporation inviting applications. From the pleadings on record, it is clear that the petitioner was engaged on 21-01-1980 temporarily and thereafter as and when there was work, he was engaged. But, when the services of the petitioner were dispensed with, he raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court, solely on the ground that the petitioner worked for more than 240 days, observed that he was terminated without following due procedure and directed him to be reinstated with continuity of service, but without backwages. As much as the nature of appointment of the petitioner is a temporary one, and his services were being utilized depending on the availability of work, it is not open for him to contend that he was not absorbed in view of the directions of the Labour Court and his services were not regularized. As the petitioner was terminated when he was engaged as a casual worker, as per the directions issued by the Labour Court, he was reinstated into service and put in the same status as he was in, on the date of termination, i.e. as a casual worker. Merely because a direction was issued for reinstatement, the same cannot be equated to that of a direction for absorption into regular service. In any event, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially engaged on 21-01-1980 and worked for some time and after the award of the Labour Court, he was reinstated into service and by that time, he has completed twelve years of service. 9. In the circumstances, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board (1 supra), I permit the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents, seeking regularization, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If any such representation is received, respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization, keeping in mind the service rendered by him all these years, pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of ﬁling such representation and communicate the same to the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. August 28, 2008 MRR [1] 2007 (T LS) 44752 [2] AIR 2008 (SCW) 647