IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8590 of 2007 Between: 1 P.Khasim S/o.Imam Saheb R/o.86/210, Shayamala nagar Kurnool,Kurnool District 2 M.Suresh Babu W/o.Thippanna R/o.Madhavi Nagar Kurnool,Kurnool District 3 Abdul Raheem S/o.Abdul Sattar R/o.Vaddegeri Kurnool,Kurnool District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Regional Manager, National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Lalguda, Secunderabad, Hyderabad 2 The Area Manager, National Seeds Corporation ltd., Shed No.3&4, industrial Estate,Kurnool, Kurnool District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent in not permitting the petitioners to continue in service as daily wage worker as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14,16,19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue in service in the office of the 2nd respondent as daily wage employee and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHALLA.SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8590 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners claim that they were being engaged by the 2nd respondent, for doing clerical work in his office, for the past 12 years. Their grievance is that the 2nd respondent asked them not to come to the work from 19.04.2007 onwards. It is stated that for the past 12 years, they have been engaged for doing clerical work, for a period not less than 240 days per year. The petitioners complain that the action of the respondents in discontinuing their services is contrary to law. They plead that having regard to the long service rendered by them, they were entitled to be regularly appointed. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that though the petitioners were being engaged for clerical work, their services were not engaged from 01.04.2007 onwards. It is further stated that by issuing a tender notice, labour contractors were selected and the work, which was being done by the daily wage workers, was assigned to them. The Agencies, which have been engaged in the recent past, are also named. Heard Sri Challa Srininvas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the respondents. It may be true that the petitioners were being engaged on daily wage basis by the 2nd respondent, for the last several years. The fact, however, remains that they were discontinued with effect from 01.04.2007. The 2nd respondent has chosen to get the work done through the Agencies of labour Contractors. Even assuming that the petitioners were being engaged by the labour Contractors, the nature of their employment becomes different. If the petitioners feel that they have been wrongfully retrenched from the service of the respondents, they have to approach the Labour Court. Not only the parties would be in a position to put forward their contentions, but also the evidence in support of the contentions would be recorded. Further, the powers of the Labour Court are fairly wide enough in the context of granting relief. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the Labour Court for necessary relief. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 10.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8590 of 2007 Date: 11.07.2008 JSU