IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20386 of 2000 Between: 1 K.Nagabhushana Reddy, S/o.K.Shankar Reddy, A.P.Transco District Stores, Guntakal, Ananthapur District, R/o. Ananthapur District. 2 B.Bogesh Babu S/o.B.Aswathu, MRTSPM, A.P.Transco Guntakal, Ananthapur District, R/o. Ananthapur District. 3 B.Basappa S/o.B.Bhimappa, MRTSPM, A.P.Transco Guntakal, Ananthapur District, R/o. Ananthapur District. 4 Devendra Prasad, S/o.P.Thimmaiah, MRTSPM, A.P.Transco Guntakal, Ananthapur District, R/o. Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Member Secretary, A.P.Transco, Khairtabad, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairtabad, at Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer, A.P.Transco, Operation Circle, Ananthapur District. 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P.Transco, District Stores, Guntakal, Ananthapur District. .....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 order, or direction, or issue an appropriate writ, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus; (i) Directing the respondents herein to regularise the services of the petitioners herein as Watchman, or any other suitable posts, providing the continuity of services from the date of their ﬁrst engagement with all consequential beneﬁts and monetary beneﬁts; (ii) Declare the action of the respondents in engaging the petitioners as contract labours, when the work of Watch and Ward personnel is perrenial, continuous and abolished by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, under Section 4 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, though G.O.Ms.No.492, Labour Employment Nutrition and Technical Education (LB-III) Department, dt:8.7.1980, without following the instructions of the Secretary, APSEB through Memo.No.DM-IR-PO-I(I)/236/76/40, dt:12.12.80 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and against the mandatory provisions of the C.L.(R&A)Act; (iii) Declare the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioners, though they are working since many years, continuously in-interruptedly as Watchman in a sanctioned vacant posts, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Art.14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and against the settled law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh; (iv) And to pass any such other order or orders as deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20386 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the four petitioners, who have worked as Watchmen for some time during the period from 1990 to 1996, seek to issue directions for their regularization in the 1st respondent-A.P.Transco, and also to declare their engagement as contract labour, as illegal. 2. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners were appointed as Security Guards in the 1st respondent- Company, but they have been discharging the duties of Watchman. It is their case that inspite of the fact that appointment to the post of Watchman cannot be made on contract basis as per the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, they were engaged on contract basis and were continued as such upto 1996 without extending the beneﬁt of time scale attached to the post of Watchman. It is submitted that asmuch as the petitioners have worked in the vacant sanctioned posts, they are entitled for regularization from the date of their initial appointment in to the 1st respondent’s service i.e. A.P.Transco. 3. On behalf of the respondents, counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Assistant Secretary (Legal) of the A.P.Transco Limited. In the counter aﬃdavit, while denying the various allegations of the petitioners, it is stated that the petitioners were not appointed in the sanctioned vacant posts. They were neither appointed to any post in the A.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’), nor their services were engaged by the Board, and as such, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Company and the petitioners. 4. It is stated that the petitioners have approached this Court earlier, in writ petition No.27832 of 1997, seeking for their absorption into the vacancies as per the beneﬁt extended by the Board in the scheme notiﬁed in B.P.( P&G.Per) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, and as per the orders passed in the said writ petition, their claims were considered and rejected. Further, the petitioners have approached this Court by ﬁling writ petition No.2724 of 1999, challenging the action of respondents in rejecting their claims. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners have ﬁled another writ petition being W.P.No.24528 of 1999, which was also dismissed by this Court by an order, dated 29.11.1999. In the meanwhile, when the petitioners were dis- engaged from service in 1996, they have approached the Labour Court by raising industrial disputes in I.D.Nos.144 of 1996, 145 of 1996, 146 of 1996 and 147 of 1996. In those I.Ds., the petitioners have impleaded one V.Koteswara Rao, Contractor, as 6 th respondent, and sought to declare the retrenchment of their services as illegal. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, through its judgment dated 11th February 1996, passed in award Nos.144 of 1996, 145 of 1996, 146 of 1996 and 147 of 1996, has directed the Contractor i.e. 6th respondent in the said I.Ds., to reinstate the petitioners. It is further stated that in the awards, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that there was no direct relationship of employer and employee between the Board and the petitioner. It is averred in the counter aﬃdavit that in view of the ﬁndings recorded by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, and also by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in the I. Ds., the petitioners are not entitled for any direction for their regularization. 5. Before considering the case putforth by the petitioners, it is appropriate to refer to certain decisions taken by the Board in the light of the representations submitted by the recognized Labour Unions. Large number of employees were working in the erstwhile Board, which is subsequently divided into several Companies in terms of the A.P.Electricity Reforms Act, 1998, as casual employees, contract labour, village electricity workers, etc. The recognized union of the erstwhile Board had made a representation to the Board to consider the claims of such personnel while ﬁlling up the vacant sanctioned posts. An agreement is entered into by the Board with the employees, as per which, the management has agreed to ﬁll up 50% of vacant posts with casual employees, contract labour, village workers etc. In terms of the said agreement, the Board has issued proceedings in B.P.(P&G.Per) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, notifying the criteria and guidelines for eligibility of the employees for absorption into the Board service. 6. Though in this writ petition the petitioners seek directions for their absorption into Board’s service, but it has to be noted that, in the ﬁrst instance, they have approached this Court, complaining that their claims were not being considered in terms of B.P.(P&G.Per) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that as per the directions issued by this Court in writ petition No.27832 of 1997, the claims made by the petitioners were considered, and were rejected on the ground that they were not working as contract labour as on the notiﬁed date in B.P. (P&G.Per) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Though, subsequently, some other writ petitions were ﬁled, the same were ended in dismissal. Even during the pendency of the proceedings, when the services of the petitioners were dis-engaged in 1996 by the Contractor, they raised industrial disputes in I.D.Nos.144 of 1996, 145 of 1996, 146 of 1996 and 147 of 1996, and the Industrial Tribunal, by its award, dated 11th February 2000, has merely directed the Contractor, who was 6th respondent in the said I.Ds., to reinstate the petitioners/workmen into service. In the said award passed by the Tribunal, it has recorded a ﬁnding that there is no direct relationship of employer and employee between the Board and the petitioners. When the said judgment has become ﬁnal, and further, when their cases were already considered and rejected as per the scheme proposed by the Board, the petitioners cannot seek any directions for their regularization. Even according to the petitioners, it is not in dispute that they were employed by the Contractor as contract labour, and at no point of time, they were absorbed in to the Board service in any vacant post. In the absence of any such appointment in the vacant post in the Board of the 1st respondent Company, the petitioners cannot seek for regularization of their service. In any event, as the petitioners were dis-engaged in 1996 even by the contractor, no direction can be granted for their regularization, at this point of time. 7. The learned counsel for petitioners has relied on an unreported judgment of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1478 of 1999, dated 15.10.1999, but however, that judgment will not render any assistance to the petitioners, having regard to the fact that so far as the claims of the petitioners are concerned, the same were already considered as per the scheme notiﬁed by the Board in B.P.(P&G.Per) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Though it is alleged by the petitioners that their services were engaged in violation of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, that would not give any right for their regularization. 8. In view of the earlier judgments of this Court in writ petition Nos.27832 of 1997, 2724 of 1999 and 24528 of 1999, and further, in view of the denial of the respondents about engaging the petitioners in the vacant sanctioned posts as alleged by them, no relief can be granted in their favour, in this writ petition. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th August 2008 ajr To 1 The Member Secretary, A.P.Transco, Khairtabad, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairtabad, at Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer, A.P.Transco, Operation Circle, Ananthapur District. 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P.Transco, District Stores, Guntakal, Ananthapur District.