IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19847 of 2007 Between: Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Foremerly Alwal Muncipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District) Rep by its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tank Bund Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M. Ramesh, S/o. Mallesh, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 K. Narasimha, S/o. Ashayya, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 G. Mahesh, S/o. Ellayya, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 K. Prabhakar, S/o. Pandu, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 P. Ramesh, S/o. Pentaiah, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 M. Pochaya, S/o. Ilaya, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 7 Ch. Mallesh, S/o. Ilaya, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 B. Yodamma, W/o. Linga, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 9 G. Prasad, S/o. Bhaskar, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 10 S. Jabba, S/o. Osman, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 11 G. Narayana, S/o. Achaiay, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 12 D. Mahesh, S/o. Krishna, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 13 R. Raghunathan, S/o. Raghunathan, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 14 Y. Ramulu, S/o. Y. Manaiya, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 15 G. Raju, S/o. Rajrathanam, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 16 G. Babu, S/o. Pochaya, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 17 M. Mallesh, S/o. Pentaiah, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 18 T. Chandrachary, S/o. Veerachary, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 19 G. Jaswanth, S/o. G. Narsimha, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 20 S. Kumar, S/o. Narasimha, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 21 B. Bikshapathi, s/o. Babulal, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 22 S. Babu, S/o. Krishna, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 23 Sk. Yousuf, S/o. Madhar, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 24 G. Srinum, S/o. Veeraswamy, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 25 T. Pavan Rajesekhar, S/o. Arunachala, C/o. Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 call for the records pertaining to MP No. 6 of 2005 on the file of The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad, and issue a Writ or order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Award dated 21-2-2007 passed in MP No. 2 of 2005 on the file of The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad, as illegal, void and unlawful and be please the pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MRC.H.INDRASENA REDDY The Court made the following : To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19839 of 2007 Between: Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Formerly Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District) represented by its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.Bhaskar, s/o Balraj, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 P.Ramana, s/o Venkateswarlu, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 K.Madhu Sudhan, s/o Narayana, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 P.Satyanarayana, s/o Saiah, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 A.Tulari, d/o A.Harisas, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 C.Suresh, s/o Krishnaiah, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 7 S.K.Sabar, s/o Madhav, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 Ibrahim, s/o Chota Sousa, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 9 S.Srinu, s/o Swamy, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 10 C.N.Venkateswar Rao, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 11 Rafiq Pasha, s/o Hatifh Pasha, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 call for the records pertaining to M.P.No.3 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl.labour Court, Hyderabad, and issue a writ or order more particularly in the nature of the writ of certiorari quashing the Award dated 21-02-2007 passed in M.P.No.4 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl.Labour Court, Hyderabad, as illegal, void and unlawful and be pleased to pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20033 of 2007 Between: Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Foremerly Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District) Rep. by its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tank Bund, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 C. Laxmi, W/o. Late Narsimha, C/o. Old Alwal Muncipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 G. Bikshpathi, S/o. Late Nagaiah, C/o. Old Alwal Muncipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 P. Mallesh, S/o. Ramulu, C/o. Old Alwal Muncipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 G. Laxmi, W/o. G. Laxmaiah, C/o. Old Alwal Muncipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 R. Laxmi, W/o. Rajaiah, C/o. Old Alwal Muncipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 R. Veera Mani, W/o. R. Shankar, C/o. Old Alwal Muncipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 7 C.P. Kousalya, W/o. Late C.P. Swamy, C/o. Old Alwal Muncipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 C. Pantamma, W/o. Pantaiah, C/o. Old Alwal Muncipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 9 M. Kumar, S/o. M. Swamy, C/o. Old Alwal Muncipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 10 G. Laxmaiah, W/o. Late Mallaiah, C/o. Old Alwal Muncipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 call for the records pertaining to M.P.No.3 of 2005 on the file of The Additional Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, and issue a Writ or order more particularly in the nature of the Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Award dated 21-02-2007 passed in M.P.NO. 5 of 2005 on the file of The Additional Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, as illegal, void and unlawful and be please to pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MRC.H.INDRASENA REDDY The Court made the following : To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19863 of 2007 Between: Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Formerly Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District) represented by its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tank Bund, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 P.Dhanalakshmi, w/o Mallesh, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 G.Pentaiah, s/o Late Nagaiah c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 K.Majula, D/o Podhaiah, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 B.Sirisha, W/o Narayana, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 S.Laxmi, W/o Mallesh, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 B.Sattamma, W/o late Laxmaiah, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 7 J.Sarala, W/o Lingam, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 Chandramma, W/o Amamy c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 9 R.Narasimha, S/o R.Narsaiah, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 10 R.Siddiram, S/o Pitchaiah, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 11 T.M.Venkatesh, S/o late Masayya, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 12 B.Ravinder, S/o late Venkaiah, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 13 B.Prasad, S/o late Mutyalu, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 14 R.Mutyalu, s/o Narasaiah, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 15 R.Swamy, s/o late Sailu, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 16 P.Mallesh, s/o late Venkaiah, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 17 Ch.Ramulu, s/o late Mysaiah, c/o Old Alwal Municipality, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 18 Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Anjaiah Bhavan, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 call for the records pertaining to M.P.No.6 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl.Labour Court, Hyderabad and issue a writ or order more particularly in the nature of the writ of certiorari, quashing the award dated 21-02-2007 passed in M.P.No.6 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl.Labour Court, Hyderabad, as illegal, void and unlawful and be pleased to pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.19847, 19839, 20033 & 19863 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: In these four writ petitions, the orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in M.P.Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 of 2005, dated 21-02-2007; are challenged. Respondents in the respective writ petitions have approached the Tribunal with applications, filed under Section 33 read with Section 33 (C) (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). They pleaded that they are the employees of the petitioner herein, and though they were entitled to be paid the emoluments @ Rs.2,810/-, for semi-skilled, and Rs.3,400/- for skilled workers, all of them were being paid only @ Rs.2,200/- per month. They claimed the difference of salary. They alleged that their engagement through a Labour Contractor is contrary to law, since, neither the petitioner, nor the labour contractor had obtained licences under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ‘the Labout Act’). Other contentions were also urged. The petitioner opposed the M.Ps on several grounds. It pleaded that there does not exist any relationship of employer and employee, between itself and the respondents, and that the applications filed under Section 33, or for that matter, Section 33 (C)(2) of the Act, are not maintainable in law. Through the impugned orders, the Tribunal held that the petitioner is under obligation to pay the difference of wages. Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Section 33 has no application to the facts of the case, since there is not even an allegation, that the service conditions of the respondents were altered, during the pendency of any proceedings before the Tribunal. She contends that when there is a serious dispute, as to the very existence of relationship of employer and employee, between the petitioner and the respondents, the question of filing an application under Section 33(C)(2), or any other sub-section thereof, does not arise. According to her, the Tribunal itself was not clear, as to the status of the respondents. Sri Ch.Indrasena Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is extracting sanitation work from the respondents, and notwithstanding the uncertainty, as to the nature of engagement, the petitioner cannot avoid its obligation to pay the prescribed wages. He contends that the Tribunal had undertaken extensive discussion, and the impugned orders do not warrant interference. There is considerable uncertainty, as to the provision of law, which the respondents intended to invoke. The impugned order proceeds on the premise, that the miscellaneous petitions were filed under Section 33 of the Act. The question of filing an application under Section 33 would arise, if only a complaint is made, about the alteration of the service conditions, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, or the Conciliation Officer, as the case may be. Such is not the case here. The reference to Section “33(C)(5)” gives an impression that the application was filed under Section 33(C)(2), or 33(C)(5). Even to invoke this, there must be an earlier adjudication, or ascertainment of the wages, and an application under Section 33(C)(2) lies only, to recover the determined amounts. Admittedly, no such earlier determination has taken place, in this case. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal discloses that the respondents themselves were not clear as to the nature of their engagement for sanitation work. At one place they stated that they are under the direct control of the petitioner, and at another, they stated that the steps taken by the petitioner are contrary to the provisions of the Labour Act. It is also evident that a complaint is made, that they are being treated as contract labour. On its part, the Tribunal proceeded to use the expressions, such as, contract labour, casual labour etc., as though there does not exist any difference between them. For instance, in para 26 of its order, the Tribunal observed, “it is an admitted fact that they have engaged casual workers on contract basis, but failed to place any particulars”. The same is followed by a discussion, as to the necessity to obtain licence and registration, under the Labour Act. In para 25, Section 21 of the Labour Act was extracted, to drive home the point, that even a labour contractor shall be responsible for payment of the wages to each worker. Admittedly, the labour contractor was not made a party. Therefore, there is any amount of uncertainty in the approach of the Tribunal, to the issue. This Court is of the view that the matter needs to be examined, afresh. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed, and the orders under challenge are set aside. The matters are remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal, and it shall deal with the specific questions, viz., a) whether the respondents were engaged by any Labour Contractor, or directly by the petitioner, and b) whether the miscellaneous petitions, filed by the respondents, are maintainable in law. The effect of failure to implead the Labour Contractor, shall also be examined. Pending disposal of the miscellaneous petitions, on such remand, the amounts deposited by the petitioner, in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court; shall remain in deposit only. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.01-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}