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 MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8049 of 2008 Between: A.P. Contract Labour Union, (Regd.No.B 1996) (Affiliated to Bharateeya Mazdoor Sangh) (Technical Wing) D.No. 22B-3-2/2, Gadivari Street, Powerpet, Eluru, W.G. District, Rep. by its President, T. Seshachalam. ... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal, Secretary to Government, Labour, Employment & Training Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Labour, A.P. Hyderabad. 3 Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, Sithammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 4 Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. ...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 a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or writs order or Direction declaring the action of the first respondent in not referring the petitioner's application dt. 3-8- 2007 to the 2nd respondent for adjudication with regard to nature of work that is being carried on by junior Linemen, Shift Operators and other personnel of Respondent No. 3 & 4 Companies as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Act No. 10 of 2003 and to consequently direct the respondent No.1 to forthwith refer the application dt.3-8-2007 of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent herein for the purpose of adjudicating as to whether the work being carried on by Junior Linemen, Shift Operators and other personnel of Respondents 3 & 4 Companies, is core activity or not; Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: O R D E R: The petitioner is a Union of Contract Labour, engaged in various establishments of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent, with an application, dated 3.8.2007, with a prayer to cause determination, as to whether the various events mentioned in the representation, viz, the activities undertaken by the contract labour, constitute core activity, within the meaning of Section 2 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (for short “the Act”), as mended by Andhra Pradesh Act 10 of 2003. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the subject matter of their representation would govern the provisions of the said enactment, the 1st respondent has not taken any steps so far. Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour, and Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. The Act prohibits the engagement of contract labour in certain activities. The A.P. State Legislature, in turn, had enacted Act 10 of 2003, prescribing the procedure for determination of “core activities” of an establishment. The 2nd respondent is constituted as an authority, for determination of such questions. Depending on the determination of the nature of activities, carried out in an establishment, the competent authority has to ensure that no core activity is undertaken, by engaging contract labour. That, in turn, would lead, either to regularization of the contract labour, or imposition of ban on such activities. The 1st respondent cannot remain oblivious to a representation made by the petitioner, which had far-reaching implications. It is not as if the determination would be unilateral in nature. The affected parties, viz; respondents 3 and 4, are also entitled to put forth their contentions, before the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to take necessary steps, to refer the questions raised by the petitioner through their representation dated 3.8.2007, to the 2nd respondent, for determination, and the latter, in turn, shall determine the matter, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 22nd April 2008 PAN