IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6485 of 2008 Between: The West Godavari District Municipal Employees Workers Union, (Reg.No.G-2537), Eluru, West Godavari Dist., rep by its President, K.Krishnamacharyulu, S/o.Venkatacharyulu, aged 58 years, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary to Labour, Employment and Training & Factories Department, Secretariat Buildings, 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 order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in terminating services of the members of the Petitioner orally, without issuing any notice, even though, the contract period is a subsisting as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, to engage the Petitioners into the duty as contract labour and further absorb them permanently in the regular posts as per their eligibility, in accordance with the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to pass any such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY Counsel for respondents 2 to 4:GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is the West Godavari District Municipal Employees Workers Union. It challenges the action of the first respondent in terminating the services of the members of the Union orally, without issuing any notice. The petitioner states that its members have been engaged to work in the Municipal Corporation in various departments through the service of a labour contractor. It is urged that even though the contract is in subsistence, the first respondent has discontinued the members of the petitioner from service. Conciliation is said to have taken place before the third respondent and even after a specific observation of the third respondent that the termination is illegal, the first respondent is said to have not complied with the directions. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and learned Government Pleader for Labour. The petitioner is not clear as to the nature of employment of its members’ vis-à-vis the first respondent. At one stretch, it is stated that the employees were engaged by the labour contractor to work with the first respondent, and on the other hand, it is alleged that the employees were terminated by the first respondent. Wherever workers are engaged by a labour contractor, the question of the principal employer terminating the services of such workers, does not arise. At any rate, these are the matters, which need to be canvassed before a Labour Court by the aggrieved persons and not by the Union. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner or its members to work out their remedies before the Labour Court, having jurisdiction over the area. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.08.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ To 1 The Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, 4 The Secretary to Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Employment and Training & Factories Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 5.2CCs to GP for Labour, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.(OUT) 6.2CD copies