IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15592 of 2009 Date:07.07.2011 Between: Yedla Venkateswara Rao and 12 others. .....Petitioners AND The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas Dept., New Delhi and 3 others. ....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.15592 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioners and recruiting the persons from outside by causing retrenchment of the petitioners and encouraging contract labour system in order to deprive the petitioners of the minimum wages as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14, 16, 19 and 212 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioners are employed as Casual Labour by the respondents corporation and presently they are working with 4th respondent. They have been issued with joining orders in the year 1980 and for some of the petitioners in 1982, 1983 and 1984. They are employed with respondent corporation initially through the contractor Prakash Enterprises and subsequently when said Prakash Enterprises was abolished, they have worked through another contractor agency viz., TISCO’s ever since they are employed with respondents corporation as Casual Labourers only. In the year 1990-92, 320 casual labours working in the capacity of contract workers with 4th respondent corporation approached this court for regularization as permanent employees with the respondent corporation. The respondent corporation in view of the orders of this Court, regularized 120 members and placed them in various categories based on their educational qualifications. Almost all the casual labours who joined along with them and few of them joined later to them are absorbed in permanent employment and were paid with all arrears leaving the present 13 petitioners without such consideration. All the petitioners herein, having passed 10th Class, are eligible for regularization in terms of respondents H.R Manual. The petitioners herein approached the respondent corporation from time to time for regularizing them as permanent employees on par with other causal labours whose services have been already regularized long back by the respondent corporation, but the respondents failed to do so. There are 49 vacancies available to be filed with the 4th respondent corporation and the petitioners herein are all eligible for absorption in the said posts in light of ONGC manual. The petitioners submitted a representation to the respondents corporation stating that for the last 25 to 28 years they have been working as a Temporary/Casual labours with the 4th respondent but till now their services were not regularized by the respondent corporation and requested to consider their case for regularization, but the respondents corporation failed to take any action on their representation and hence they filed this writ petition. 4. The respondents 2 to 4 filed their counter affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petition and stating that the petitioners on their own showing admitted that they are casual labour and not recruited as per the recruitment rules of the respondent corporation and as such they are not entitled to regularization of their services in ONGC, which is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, being a Central Government Company required to follow its own recruitment rules and the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. On this preliminary objection, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondents 2 to 4 further contended that this court has dismissed number of writ petitions filed by the contract labour for absorption of their services in ONGC. Only in W.P.No.4320 of 1990, this court held that those who are engaged directly by the then Commission as casual labour and subsequently engaged through contractor, shall be deemed to have been continued labour and to keep them in a panel and consider their cases for regularization in suitable posts in the future vacancies that may arise by giving age relaxation if they are found eligible for such appointment. However, vacancies have not arisen subsequent to the said judgment, as such the question of considering them for appointment in regular posts did not arise and hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are working since 1992 as a casual labour employed by the respondents 2 to 3 and that the Chief Manger of the respondent corporation also recommended the case of the petitioners for regularization by creating vacancies as proposed and that has not been accepted by the 2nd respondent and therefore prays to give a direction to the respondents to regularize their services. 6. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents corporation contended that the petitioners already filed Writ Petition No.4320 of 1999 before this court whereunder this court directed the petitioners who are engaged only through Oil and Natural Gas Technicians and Industrial Service Cooperative Society Limited should be put in the panel and consider the case for regularization in suitable posts against the future vacancies and that no such future vacancies arose thereafter and therefore, the question of considering the petitioners for regularization does not arise. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for regularization of the services of the petitioners and also to direct the respondents not to recruit the persons from outside by causing retrenchment of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that some of the petitioners herein who are filed the Writ Petition No.4320 of 1990 whereunder this court has given a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to put the petitioners therein in the panel and thereafter their case has to be considered for regularization in the future vacancies. For the self same relief, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioners are said to be the parties to the earlier round of the litigation. Therefore, for the same direction, the present writ petition is filed and the relief sought for is hit by the principles of resjudicata. Even otherwise according to the learned senior counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, no regular vacancies arose after the direction given by this court in W.P.No.4320 of 1990 so as to consider their case for regularization. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J Date: 07th July, 2011. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15592 of 2009 Date: 07.07.2011 Gk.