IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.24359 of 2000 Date: 11th August, 2010 Between: K.Nageswara Rao and others. .. Petitioners And The Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers’ Cooperative Society Ltd., rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. .. Respondent ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not regularizing the services of the petitioners in the respondent society as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits. According to the petitioners, first petitioner was appointed as Clerk with effect from 1.6.1989, second petitioner was appointed as Clerk/Sales Woman with effect from 1.6.1989, third petitioner was appointed as sales man with effect from 1.6.1989 and fourth petitioner was appointed as Typist with effect from 1.12.1984 in the respondent society. It is their case that they worked continuously upto 31.3.1995, on which date, the services of second, third and fourth petitioners were terminated and the services of the first petitioner were terminated with effect from 3.4.1995. Questioning the said termination, petitioners filed appeals before the Appellate Authority under A.P. Shops and Establishments Act and the said appeals were allowed by orders dated 3.11.1997 directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioners into service with full back wages, continuity of service and with all other attendant benefits. Questioning the said orders, respondent society filed second appeals before the second appellate authority under A.P. Shops and Establishments Act and the same were dismissed by orders dated 12.10.1998. Aggrieved thereby, respondent filed writ petitions, writ appeals and SLPs before the Supreme Court, which also ended in dismissal and thus the orders passed by the first appellate authority in allowing the appeals filed by the petitioners have attained finality. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that though they have been reinstated into service with effect from 28.10.1999 and 11.7.2000 and have been working continuously, their services are not regularized and they are being paid daily wages. According to the petitioners, continuing them for such a longtime on daily wage basis amounts to unfair labour practice under Schedule V of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the action of the respondent in not regularizing the services of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. Hence this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis and there are no regular substantive vacancies for appointing the petitioners on regular basis. The respondent society is running in huge losses and therefore creating any further posts to accommodate the petitioners does not arise. Since the petitioners are not regularly appointed, the question of payment of regular pay scales does not arise. However, in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners, it was asserted that the cases of their juniors were considered and apart from that, the respondent society addressed a letter dated 5.2.2009 to the Registrar and Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad recommending the names of petitioners along with other candidates. The respondents filed additional counter stating that petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis and whereas Kum.M.Kalavathi and G.S.Anna Rao were appointed on consolidated wage basis and therefore, the said Kalavathi and G.S.Anna Rao were absorbed into the service of respondent society and the petitioners cannot equate with those persons. There is a difference in the post held by the petitioners and the consolidated employees. Further, the sanctioned strength in respect of Junior Assistants cadre is 60, but the contention of the petitioners that 50 vacancies are lying vacant and they are entitled for regularization is not correct. The posts held by the petitioners are daily wagers and the daily wagers cannot equate with that of Junior Assistants. Therefore, the question of regularizing the services of petitioners does not arise. Heard both sides and perused the material made available on record. The facts are not in dispute, particularly the date of appointment of the petitioners and finalization of termination proceedings and their reinstatement. Thus, petitioners have put in more than 25 years of service as of today. However, their services are not being regularized on the ground that they are daily wage employees. The fact that the petitioners are working for the last more than 25 years continuously is not denied. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioners were appointed by way of back door method and are being continued on sympathetic grounds. The respondent has categorically admitted that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis and not on regular basis. Therefore, not regularizing the services of petitioners is nothing but amounts to unfair labour practice. I am of the opinion that petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services on par with their juniors M.Kalavathi and G.S.Anna Rao. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services on par with those who were appointed whether on consolidated basis or daily wage basis. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider regularizing the services of petitioners on par with juniors in the cadres in which they are entitled to be absorbed and put them on regular timescale and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 11.8.2010 DA