IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 11455 of 1999 Between: 1 A. Saidaiah S/o Venkaiah Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 2 S. Rajeswara Rao S/o Balaswamy Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 3 P. Yogi Reddy S/o Mallareddy Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 4 SK. Pathan S/o Khaderkhan Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 5 SM. Surabhi S/o Khasim Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 6 K.P.Reddy S/o Rami Reddy Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 7 I. Venkata Narsu S/o Venkata Swamy Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 8 P. Janardhana Rao S/o Ratnam Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 9 E. Kullappa S/o Asin Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 10 H. Akbar Ali S/o Masthan Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 11 K. Kotaiah S/o Ramaiah Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 12 B. Konda Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 13 J. Venkateswarlu S/o Ramaiah Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 14 D. Inna Reddy S/o David Reddy Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 15 V. Adisesaiah S/o Venkataswamy Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 16 Subhani Mahaboob S/o Abdul Gani Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Chief Managing Director, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Hemkunt Chambers, 10th Floor, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19. 2 General Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Southern Regional Office, Ist & IIIrd floor, M.C.H.Commercial Complex, R.P.Road, Secunderabad 3 Chief Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., 4000 KV Sub Station Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur 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 an appropriate, order or direction or a writ more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to regularize the petitioners services as Security Guard by absorbing them in regular posts by declaring the action of the respondents to appoint outsiders as Security Guards as illegal and void. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.DHARMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : MR.M.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO FOR RVAK-1TO3 The Court made the following : ORDER Admittedly, all the petitioners were appointed as Security Guards through a Security Agency in the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited on a consolidated salary of Rs.2080/- p.m. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that they are the employees of the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and therefore, they are entitled for regulation of their services. Whereas, the respondents denied the said allegation and contended that the petitioners have been engaged through a Security Agency. Therefore, the writ petition seeking regularization of their services is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation relied upon a judgment reported in A.P.S.R.T.C v. G.Srinivas Reddy [1] wherein it was held thus: “In this case, there was no notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting contract labour. There was also neither a contention nor a finding that the contract with the contractor was sham and nominal and the contract labour working in the establishment were, in fact, employees of the principal employer himself. In view of the principles laid down in STEEL AUTHORITY, (2001) 7 SCC 1, the High Court could not have directed absorption of the respondents who were held to be contract labour, by assuming that the contract-labour system was only a camouflage and that there was a direct relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the respondents. If the respondents want the relief of absorption, they will have to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Court and establish that the contract-labour system was only a ruse/camouflage to avoid labour law benefits to them. The High Court could not, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, direct absorption of the respondents, on the ground that work for which the respondents were engaged as contract labour, was perennial in nature.” Further, it appears that the petitioners have raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the Conciliation Officer reported failure of the conciliation to the Government and no information is available what was happened thereafter. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ C.V.RAMULU, J 22.4.2008 rkk/DA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Chief Managing Director, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Hemkunt Chambers, 10th Floor, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19. 2 General Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Southern Regional Office, Ist & IIIrd floor, M.C.H.Commercial Complex, R.P.Road, Secunderabad 3 Chief Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., 4000 KV Sub Station Tallapalli, Macherla (M), Guntur District. 4.2CD copies [1] (2006) 3 SCC 674