IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 4179 of 2003 Between: 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Depot Manager Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Siddipet, Medak District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Abdul Jabbar S/o Andul Chadir H.No.12-3-108/2, Kaherpura, Siddipet, Medak District. 2 Mohd. Abdullah Moinuddin S/o Ahmed Moinuddin H.No.B. 156, HAL Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad. 3 B. Jagadish S/o Surender Babu H.No.12-2-133, Gandhinagar, Siddipet, Medak District. 4 M. Chandramouli S/o Balaiah Kistasagar Village, Ponnal Post Siddipet Mandal, Medak District. 5 Labour Court-II Rep. by its Presiding Officer 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction especially in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned common award dt. 18-10-2002 made in ID Nos. 100/99, 216/99, 8/2000 and 109/2000 Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, published on 30-11-2002, setting aside the alleged termination of services of respondent 1 to 4 and directing their reinstatement into service with continuity of service, but without back wages; and quash the same as being illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SIR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.4179 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. (for short ‘the Corporation’) seeking Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned common award dated 18-10-2002 passed in I.D. Nos.100 and 216 of 1999 and 8 and 109 of 2000 by the learned Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) and to quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid. The respondents 1 to 4 herein are the workmen who filed applications under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 seeking to set aside the oral order of termination by the Depot Manager, Siddipet and to direct the Corporation to reinstate the workmen into service with all benefits like continuity of service and back wages. Brief facts of the case of the workmen are that they joined in the Corporation as Cleaners in the month of May, 1991 and worked up to July, 1993 without any break in service and their services were utilized not only for Sweeping, Cleaning and Washing of buses but also on Mechanical side. While so, the Depot Manager, terminated their services without giving any notice or payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation. Therefore, the termination of the workmen is illegal, unjust and contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Corporation did not follow the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act while terminating the services of the workmen. After termination of the workmen, they approached the Corporation and submitted representation and the Corporation did not consider the same. Therefore, they raised dispute before the Court below. The Corporation filed its counter before the Court below, inter alia, submitted that the job of sweeping and cleaning of buses in Siddipet depot was entrusted to a contractor by name A. Bhooma Goud during the period from 15-03-1991 to 01-02-1993 as he quoted the lowest price for doing the same. The Corporation submitted that the workmen might have worked under the said contractor and as such, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the workmen. Therefore, question of following the principles of natural justice by the Corporation while terminating the services of the workmen does not arise. Further, it is submitted that since the Corporation, as per the recruitment regulations, did not recruit the workmen, they are not entitled to any of the reliefs as sought for. Further, it is also submitted that the earnings for washing and cleaning of the buses were paid to the contractor, on the basis of the certificate given by the mechanical supervisor and the contract was cancelled on 01-02-1993. Since there was no relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the workmen the applications filed by the workmen are not maintainable. The Court below framed the following issues for determination: “1. Whether there was relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondent? 2. If so, whether the petitioners were in continuous service of the respondent for one year. 3. Whether the respondent was justified in terminating the services of the petitioners. 4. If not, to what relief are the petitioners entitled to?” After considering evidence, both oral and documentary, on either side, the Court below came to the conclusion that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the workmen and held that the workmen are able to establish that they have worked continuously as Cleaners in the Corporation for more than one year. Further it is also held that the Corporation was not justified in terminating the services of the workmen. Eventually, while setting aside the order of termination the Corporation was directed to reinstate the workmen into service with continuity of service but without back wages. Assailing the same, the present petition came to be filed by the Corporation. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the workmen were being employed through the contractor but the Corporation did not recruit them as per the recruitment procedure. Therefore, there is no master and servant relationship between the Corporation and the workmen and the Court below erroneously held that there is a relationship of employer and the employee between the parties and the workmen are entitled to reinstatement into service with continuity of service. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the workmen submits that the Court below after considering the entire evidence on record has rightly held that there is a relationship of employer and employee between the parties and has rightly directed the Corporation to reinstate the workmen into service with continuity of service. He further submits that the Corporation never followed the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Act, therefore the Court below has rightly set aside the order of termination and the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Further more, the grounds that have been raised by the Corporation in the instant petition are the question of facts, which have already been properly adjudicated by the Court below therefore, this Court, need not go into the question of facts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. There is no dispute with regard to the factum of workmen worked continuously as Cleaners for the period from 24-05-1991 to 01-02-1993. The only dispute by the Corporation is that the workmen were being employed through the contractor but not by the Corporation following recruitment procedure. Therefore, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. It is obvious from the record that earlier similarly situated employees raised similar dispute before the Court below and the Corporation had resisted with similar grounds as now taken in the instant case. But the said contentions of the Corporation were rejected and allowed the applications directing the Corporation to reinstate them into service and the same was implemented. Admittedly, it is pertinent to note that the Corporation is not at all entitled to entrust works on contract basis under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolishment) Act 1970. Further, the alleged contractor did not obtain any licence as a contractor as required under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolishment) Act, 1970. The Corporation has failed to place any material that it has the right under law to engage the persons on contract basis. Producing identity cards by the workmen itself shows that they are the casual labours of the Corporation, since this fact was not denied by the Corporation. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the workmen are the casual employees of the Corporation and hence when the Corporation wanted to terminate their services, it must follow due procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Act and that was not at all followed by the Corporation. The Court below taking note of the above factors, rightly held that the workmen are entitled to reinstatement into service with continuity of service but without back wages. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the workmen submits that as on today the workmen are in service. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and earlier, similarly situated employees filed I.D. Nos.13 and 14 of 1996 and 40 and 67 of 1998 wherein the Corporation was directed to reinstate the workmen therein and accordingly the workmen therein were reinstated into service, which was not disputed by the Corporation and since the question of facts raised before this Court have already been properly adjudicated by the Court below, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed confirming the common order dated 08-10-2002 passed in I.D. Nos.100 and 216 of 1999 and 8 and 109 of 2000 by the Court below. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 14-11-2008 LSK