IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24703 of 2002 Between: Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Rep. by its President, Ministerial Employees Association, Government Regd.No. 1317/97, H.No.S-4, C617, NGO's Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Rep. by its Director (Personnel), Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principle Secretary to Govt., M.A. & U D Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Labour, Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent is illegal, arbitrary and set aside the impugned letter No.20752/C2/2000-6, M.A., dt. 11.9.2001 on the file of the second respondent and consequently direct the respondents to delete the names of the petitioner's Association members from the workmen voters list by recognizing the union represented by Ministerial staff Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.MUKUNDA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24703 of 2002 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner association assailed the validity of the decision taken and communicated under letter No.20752/C2/2000-6 M.A. dated 11.09.2001 issued by the second respondent – Principal Secretary to the Government. 2. First respondent - Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board (the Board, for short) is constituted under the provisions of the Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board Act, 1989 (HMWSSB Act, for s hort). Prior to formation of the Board, the activities were being undertaken by the Water Works Department by the Government. On formation of the Board, certain employees working under the Government were transferred to the Board. As per Section 113(i) of HMWSSB Act, after transfer of the employees of the Government to the Board, they are not only ceased to be Government employees, but also their services rendered before their transfer to the Board are deemed to be the services rendered under the Board. After constitution of the Board, employees working in the Board have registered a trade union, as Board is an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At this stage it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered whether the employees working in such Board are workmen and whether such Board constituted is an industry in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A Rajappa[1] and held that Board is an industry and the employees working in the said Board are workmen. 3. It is the case of the petitioner association that as ministerial staff working in the Board are not being represented properly for redressal of their grievances by the recognized trade union of the Board, they formed into a separate association i.e. petitioner association and that as much as they being ministerial employees, they are entitled for recognition of their association. Therefore, the petitioner association made a representation for recognition their association but their request was turned down by the impugned letter dated 11.09.2001, validity of which is under challenge in this writ petition, for the aforesaid grounds. 4. With reference to the said submissions, it is to be seen whether the petitioner association fit to be ‘Service Association’ as defined under Rule 2(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1962 (the Rules, for short) framed under G.O.Ms.No.1144 dated 08.08.1962, regarding recognition of Service Association by the Government in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Here it is relevant to extract the definition of ‘Service Association’ as defined under Rule 2(d) of the Rules, which reads as follows. “Service Association” means a service Association recognized or deemed to be recognized under these rules and includes a federation or confederation of service Associations so recognized but does not include an Association, Union, Federation or confederation of Government employees employed in any industrial undertaking owned or controlled by the Government. 5. As seen from the above definition an association, union, federation or confederation of Government employees employed in any industrial undertaking owned or controlled by the Government is excluded. In that view of the matter, as much as it is not in dispute that the Board is an industrial undertaking controlled by the Government, the petitioner association do not fit to be ‘Service Association’ to seek recognition as per the Rules. 6. In any event as the members of the petitioner association are already members of recognized trade union of the Board, I do not find any illegality in refusing to accede to the request of the petitioner association for recognition of their association separately in the Board, which is an industry. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th June, 2009 GHN To 1 Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Rep. by its Director (Personnel), Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principle Secretary to Govt., M.A. & U D Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Labour, Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. 4 One CC copies to the Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development. 5 Two CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI} [1] AIR 1978 SC 548