IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 2597 of 1999 Between: 1. N Bhakthavatsala Rao S/o N.V. Ranga Rao R/o 6-12-11, K.B. Layout, Tirupathi 517507 2. R.V.Subba Rao S/o R Venkata Subba Rao R/o 6-12-11, K.V. Layout, Tirupathi-517507 3. U Laxmana Rao S/o Sri Venkateswarlu 6-12-11, K.B. Layout, Tirupathi-517507 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanams Rep by its Executive Officer Tirupathi 2 M/s Om Sai Professional Detective and Security Services(P) Limited, Rep by its Managing Director 57-3-4, Satram Street, Tatamaata Post, Vijaywada 5200006 3 The Manager T.T.D.Kalyanamandapam cum Information centre, Gudur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any Writ, Order or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents to re- engage the petitioners as Watchman-cum-Attender and absorb them as regular employees of Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanams with all benefits including the pay scales on par with other employees with effect from the date of their joining with all consequential and attendant benefits. Counsel for the Petitioners:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-engage the petitioners as Watchman- cum-Attender and absorb them as regular employees of Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanam with all benefits including pay scales on par with other employees with effect from the date of their joining with all consequential and attendant benefits. The case of the petitioners is that they were engaged as Watchman-cum-Attender in TTD Kalyanamandapam-cum- Information Centre, Gudur with effect from 01-07-1997 through the 2nd respondent on an assurance that they will be paid a consolidated salary of Rs.1800/- per month but the 2nd respondent was paying Rs.800/- apart from the petitioner subjecting to payment of security deposit amounting to Rs.1000/- each. Ever since from their engagement, they were assured regularization under the 1st respondent, as the TTD requires regular Watchman-cum-Attender for their Kalyanamandapam at Gudur. Thereafter, their services were discontinued with effect from 30-06-1998. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed proceedings in Roc.No.B7/50013/1997 dated 12-02- 2008 and in Roc.No.TS3/7532/2006 dated 09-06-2008 issued by the Executive Officer, T.T. Devasthanam, Tirupati, wherein the services of the Home Guards and Potu workers of Sri GT, Tirupati and Sri KRT, Tirupati were absorbed and regularized. He also submitted that the said Home Guards and Potu workers were also engaged through the contractor only. Though the services of the Home Guards and Potu workers were regularized but the case of the petitioners for absorption and regularization was not considered. Though the services of the petitioners were discontinued with effect from 30-06-1998, they have not been re-engaged in terms of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, non-consideration of re-engagement is contrary and illegal. Further, it is also submitted that the case of the petitioners is also similar to that of the persons whose services were regularized vide proceedings dated 12-02-2008 and 09-06-2008. In view of the above, the case of the petitioners also can be considered on par with the employees whose services were regularized vide proceedings dated 12-02-2008 and 09-06-2008. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 3, while denying the averments made by the petitioners, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, it is submitted that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and the respondents 1 and 3. It is also submitted that the petitioners were employed by the 2nd respondent, who was awarded with the contract of maintenance of Kalyana mandapams and Security, and the wages also paid by the 2nd respondent only. Further, it is also submitted that the respondents 1 and 3 have no control over the petitioners, as there was no relationship of employer and employee between them. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents 1 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioners taking into consideration Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also taking into consideration the proceedings in Roc. No.B7/50013/1997 and in Roc.No.TS3/7532/2006 dated 12-02- 2008 and 09-06-2008, respectively, issued by the Executive Officer, T.T.Devasthanams, Tirupati and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 27-06-2008 LSK