THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26085 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Welfare Society of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Licensed Porters. T.T.D is a famous place of worship, and devotees were visiting it from time immemorial. The mode of transport to the hills and the facility to the pilgrims at that place improved from time to time. The petitioner states that its members were supplying hot water to the pilgrims, and for that purpose, each member was granted a licence by the Devasthanam. Over the period, geysers were installed in the accommodation provided by the Devasthanam, and thereby the necessity for any porters to supply hot water ceased. The petitioner was making efforts to get alternative employment for its members in the Devasthanam. For that purpose, it had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.26025 of 2000, and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Devasthanam to consider the case of the licensed porters for being provided alternative employment. It is also stated that in pursuance of the orders passed therein, and the initiative taken by the Lok Adalat, at Tirupati, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the Devasthanam, so much so, Negotiations Committee was constituted to work out certain details. It is stated that the only area of controversy was, to arrive at the wages, and instead of taking steps in that direction, the Devasthanam passed a resolution, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, half way through. Consequential proceedings dated 27-07-2009 were issued. The petitioner challenges the same. It is pleaded that there was no justification on the part of the Devasthanam in denying the facility of providing alternative employment to the members of the petitioner, and that the impugned proceedings are issued in an arbitrary manner. The Devasthanam filed a counter-affidavit. The various developments that have taken place in the matter from time to time are mentioned. It is stated that mere appointment of a Negotiations Committee does not confer any right upon the petitioner. It is also stated that the Devasthanams’ Board had examined the matter from various angles and ultimately come to the conclusion that it is not feasible to accept the request of the petitioner. Heard Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. The members of the petitioner society became unemployed on account of the improvement of the facilities in the cottages maintained by the Devasthanam. Except that licences were issued to the members of the petitioner, there was no relationship of employer and employee. The Devasthanam never paid any wages to such persons. The Negotiations Committee took steps to examine the feasibility of providing work to the members of the petitioner society. At one stage, a committee was constituted to work out the modalities of engagement on daily wages. It appears that the petitioner acted in a bit hasty manner, when the matter was under consideration. The petitioner filed execution proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Tirupati, claiming the alleged arrears of wages to the tune of Rs.28,64,160/- for the period from 09-06-2005 to 08-06-2006, for 85 workers. Another sum of Rs.26,25,480/- was claimed for the subsequent year. The matter was referred to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, and the proceedings were entertained as P.W. Case Nos. 9 and 14 of 2007. The Devasthanam filed W.P.Nos.26978 and 26979 of 2007, challenging the said proceedings. When the very effort was to seek alternative employment, institution of proceedings, as though the members are already employed, naturally rubbed the Board on the wrong side and a decision was taken to reject the request of the petitioner. It is not a case, where the persons already employed by the Devasthanam in one department were retrenched, and efforts were made to accommodate them in another department. As observed earlier, they were never in the employment of the Devasthanam at all. It is ultimately for the Devasthanam to take a decision whether or not to provide employment to such persons, duly taking into account, the availability of work load and financial conditions. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the decision taken by the Board. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. The emphasis of the petitioner is more to obtain the contract for sanitation works entrusted by the Devasthanam. In case the sanitation or similar works are being entrusted to various agencies on outsourcing basis, the petitioner can also organize its members to such an agency and approach the Devasthanam for assignment of work. In case the society or agency so created conforms to the norms stipulated by the Devasthanam, it can also consider the case of the petitioner, or its members, along with other eligible agencies for assignment of work, as and when steps are taken for assignment of contract. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order under challenge. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.18-08-2011. KO