IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1857 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 08/08/2005 in WP NO : 20971 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Welfare Commisioner, Labour Welfare Board, Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyd. 2 The Commissioner of labour, A.P., Anjaiah bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyd. 3 Govt. of A.P., Rep by its Cheif Secretary, Labour Employment, Training & Factories Dept., Secretariat Bldgs, Hyd. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 K.Narsamma, W/o K.Vittal, R/o 1-1-18/73/3, RTC X Roads, Hyd. 2 K.Srinivas Reddy, S/o K.Laxma Reddy, R/o Champet, Hyd. 3 The Commissioner of Labour A.P., Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad 4 Governmetn of A.P., rep by Chief Secrtary, Labour Employment Training & Factrories Department Secrtariat, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1857 of 2005 Oral Judgment : ( Per Sri GM, J) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 8-8- 2005, passed in Writ Petition No.20971 of 1999 by the learned single Judge of this Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the Writ Petition. The petitioners were initially appointed as ad hoc Sweeper and ad hoc Plumber-cum-Pump Operator respectively in the 1st respondent-Welfare Board and that by the proceedings dated 27-9-1999 the 1st respondent has terminated the services of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they have put in more than five years of service as on the date of passing of the termination proceedings. As per G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 28-12-1995 Regulations known as Andhra Pradesh Labour Welfare Board Service Regulations, 1995, have been framed, which were approved by the Government and notified vide A.P. Gazettee dated 4-1-1996. The learned single Judge considering the fact that the petitioners have completed five years of service as on 27-9-1999, held that the termination order, stating that the petitioners have not completed five years of service and as such they are not entitled for regularization and that they have not fulfilled the condition of sponsoring through Employment Exchange, is unsustainable. As per Regulation 2 of the Regulations, these regulations shall apply to the employees employed by the A.P. Labour Welfare Board, who had been appointed for the post created by the Board on ad hoc basis. Therefore, the learned single Judge set aside the termination proceedings, with further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with continuity of service, but without any backwages. It is mainly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis, and that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization inasmuch as they are not entitled for regularization either in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.4.1994 or Act 2 of 1994 read with Act 27 of 1998. Regulation 6 therefore reads as follows : “ 6. The Board in future shall notify the posts to the Employment Exchange in future and avoid legal complications as the Board is independent and autonomous statutory body falling under the term State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.” From a perusal of Regulation 6, it is seen that the Board shall notify the posts to the Employment Exchange in future to avoid legal complications, as the Board is an independent and autonomous statutory body falling under the term ‘State’ for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On a perusal of the impugned order, and considering the facts that as on the date of framing of regulations, the petitioners were in fact in service, and the Regulations would protect the service conditions of the petitioners, the impugned order passed in the Writ Petition setting aside the termination orders of the petitioners stands confirmed. However, we are the view that it is not within the purview of this Court to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners, and it is for the respondents to consider their case as per the Scheme. Therefore, the order passed in the Writ Petition insofar as directing regulations of the services of the petitioners stands set aside. Subject to above, the Writ Appeal stands allowed in part. No costs. __________________ GM, J ______________ VVA, J Dated : 13-8-2009 Kk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1857 of 2005 13-8-2009