IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2360 of 2009 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, West Godavri District, Rep by its President, T.seshachalam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal secretary to Government, Labour Employement & Training, Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 Southern 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 may 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 petitioners application dt. 9-5-2008 to the 2nd Respondent, for adjudication with regard to nature work that is being carried on by Meter Readers cum spot Billing Workers and other personnel of third respondent company, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Act No.10 of 2003 and to consequently direct the Respondents No. 1 to forthwith refer the Application dt. 9-5-2008 of the petitioner, to the 2nd respondent herein for the purpose of adjudicating as to whether the work being carried on by Meter Readers cum Spot Billing Workers and other personnel of third Respondent Company is core activity or not; Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL OF APSPDCL. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a registered trade union. It has been taken up the cause of contract labour engaged in various establishments of the Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited-3rd respondent, more particularly, Meter Readers-cum-Spot Billing Workers, Shift Operators and other personnel of lower category. The petitioner Union has been agitating for absorption of the contract labour working as Meter Readers-cum-Spot Billing Workers etc. The petitioner Union approached the 1st respondent with an application dated 09.05.2008 with a prayer to cause determination, as to whether the various events mentioned in the representation viz., the activities under taken 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 amended by Andhra Pradesh Act 10 of 2003. The grievance of the petitioner Union is that though the subject matter of its representation would govern the provisions of the said enactment, the 1st respondent has not been taken any steps on the representation. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Union and learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 3. 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. 4. Since the representation of the petitioner Union is stated to be pending before the 1st respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation dated 09.05.2008 submitted by the petitioner Union and pass appropriate orders. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:17th February, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}