IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14511 of 2008 Between: G. Shyamalamman W/o Yellaiah R/o 1-220, Madikonda, S.C. Colony, Hanmakonda, Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Lala Guda, Secunderabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Area manager, National seeds Corporation Ltd., Shed No. 3 & 4 Industrial Estate, Kurnool, Kurnool 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declarign the action of the 2nd respondent in not permitting the petitioners to continue in service as daily wage workder as illegal, arbitrary, gainst the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit petitioners to continue in service inthe office of the 2nd respondent as daily wage employee and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHALLA.SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.LAXMI NARSIMULU The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14511 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims that she was being engaged by the 2nd respondent, for doing unskilled work, for the past 20 years. Her grievance is that the 2nd respondent asked her not to come to the work from 01.07.2008 onwards. It is stated that for the past 20 years, she has been engaged for various works, for a period not less than 240 days per year. The petitioner complains that the action of the respondents in discontinuing her services is contrary to law. She pleads that having regard to the long service rendered by her, she was entitled to be regularly appointed. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that though the petitioner was being engaged for seasonal works, such as cleaning of seeds, her services were not engaged from 01.04.2007 onwards. It is further stated that by issuing a tender notice, labour contractors were selected and the work, which was being done by the daily wage workers, was assigned to them. The Agencies, which have been engaged in the recent past, are also named. Heard Sri Challa Srininvas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the respondents. It may be true that the petitioner was being engaged on daily wage basis by the 2nd respondent, for the last several years. The fact, however, remains that she was discontinued with effect from 01.04.2007. The 2nd respondent has chosen to get the work done through the Agencies of labour Contractors. Even assuming that the petitioner was being engaged by the labour Contractors, the nature of employment becomes different. If the petitioner feels that she has been wrongfully retrenched from the service of the respondents, she has to approach the Labour Court. Not only the parties would be in a position to put forward their contentions, but also the evidence in support of the contentions would be recorded. Further, the powers of the Labour Court are fairly wide enough in the context of granting relief. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court for necessary relief. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 10.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14511 of 2008 Date: 10.07.2008 JSU