C"si;G'; ffii.". 6t Hvd6rabad Metro Rail v. 1. The Authority under the Minimum Wages and 7-Others' Act'

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 04-03-2022 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.1 1221 of 2022, and to dismiss the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt C.R.SRIDHARAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G.V.S.GANESH Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 5 & 8 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI KRISHNA SWAMY, AGP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the-Respondent No.7 : SRI P.RADHIVE REDDY W.P.N O:11228 OF 2022 Between: L and T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited' a Company incorporated .Yi99'i!" doi,orni". Act, 1956, r,r"ing iti Registered office at Hy{erabad Me-tro^ Rail Xiii.i|Iiii"riirliiliroi"s, upprr Main Road, Nasole, llyderabad, relansana -500 g3-e, itt nEro'"i1"grt ano Com[anv Secretary, trilr' chandrachud D' ;;;;;;;G'by Paliwal. ..,..PETITIONER AND

1. The Authority under the l\rlinimum Wage: 491 lnd 7 others, 1948 and the neoionriLr6our Commissioner (Cential), All Campus, Shivam Road Vid-yanagar, HYderabad - 500 007.

2. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) All Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar' Hyderabad - 500 007.

3. M/s. Updater Services (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Vice President' Mr' l. .B'Jayram " N;.rabrA, uDS salai,'ohbld tvtiha6alipuram Road rhoraipakkam' chennai - 97.

4. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus' Shivam Road Vidyanagar, HYderabad - 500 007.

5. The Asst Labour Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, HYderabad - 500 007.

6. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Labour Department Telangana Ser;retariat Hyderabad - 50O O22.

7. Hyderabad IVelro Rail Limited, (A Government of Telangana E:nterprise) Rasoolpura, [3r:gumpet Hyderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its Managing Director.

8. Union of India, Rep. by its Under Secretary l\/inistry of Labour and Employment Central Secretariat New Delhi - 1 '10 001 . ....RESPONDENTS Petition Und,-.r Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia pray ng that in the circumstances stated jn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a 'y'Vrit of Prohibition or any other appropriate 'y'Vrit, Order or Direction, against the impugned proceedings being l\/.W. l\pplication No. 2412021, pending on the file of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, the Respondent No. t herein, while declaring tl-rat the Central Government is not tlre appropriate Government under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 insofar as th,: Petitioner, being a non-Government ltrletro Railway and/or issue such further or other directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of costs of these proceedings. I.A.NO:1 OF 2022 Petition Underr Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in IV.W. Application No.2412021, pending c,rr the file of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, the Rescondent No.1 herein, pending drspcsal of the writ petition. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Between

1. Authority under the lt/inimum Wages and 7 Others, Act, 19,18 and the Regional L.abour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

2. Labour Enfcrcement Officer, (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

3. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

4. The Asst Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007. 5 Union of lndia, Rep. by its Under Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment Central Secretariat New Delhi - 1 1 0 001. .....PETTONERS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2, 4, 5 & 8 AND '1 . IV/s L and T lt/etro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Hyderabad Metro Rail Administrative Building, Uppal Main Road, Nagole, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 039, represented by its Head of Legal and Company Secretary, Mr- Chandrachud D. Paliwal. ....RESPONDENT/PETTIONER

2. I\//s. Updater Services (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Vice President, Mr. L.B. Jayram No.2/3024, UDS Salai, Off Old l\/ahabalipuram Road Thoraipakkam, Chennai - 97.

3. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Labour Department Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad - 50O O22.

4. Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited, (A Government of Telangana Enterprise) Rasoolpura, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its l\rlanaging Director. ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 04-03-2022 passed in l.A.No.1 o'f 2022 in W.P.No.1 1228 of 2022, and to dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.R.SRIDHARAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G.V.S.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 , 2, 4, 5 & 8 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI KRISHNA SWAMY, GP FOR LABOUR Gounsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI P.RADHIVE REDDY W.P NO: 11229 OF 2022 Between: L ahd T l\iletro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, a company incorporated under the Corouni"r Act, 1g56, having its Registered Office at Hyderal:;rd IVIetro Rail AJri-ni.irriir"-duitoirg. Uppal"Main Ro-ad Nagole,-Hyderabad Telangana.- 500 bde, i"piJ.""t"O ny iti neiit of Legal and Company Secretary. [t/r. ']handrachud D- Paliwal. . ..,..PETITIONER AND 1 . The Authority urnder the tvlinimum Wages Act and 7 others, 1 948 and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Shivanr Road Vidyanagar, llyderabad - 500 007.

2. Labour Enforr:ement Officer (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Foad Vidyanagar, Hvderabad - 500 007.

3. Ir//s. Peregrine Guarding Private Limited, Rep. by Laxman Chokkam Regional Head PloiNo.l0O/1 , H.No.1-96-100 Kavuri Hills, Ir,4adhapur H'Tderabad - 500 08'1 .

4. The Deputy Chief Labour, Commissioner (Central) ATI Campu:;, Shivam Road Vidyanrallar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

5. The Asst Labo.lr Commissioner, (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, llvderabad - 500 007.

6. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Labour Department Telangana Sr:r;retariat Hyderabad - 50O O22. 7- Hyderabad lVletro Rail Limited, (A Government of Telangana t:nterprise) Risoolpura, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its l\,4anar3ing Director.

8. Union of lndiia, Rep. by its Under Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment Central Secretariat New Delhi - 1'10 00'l . .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriater Writ, Order or Direction, against the impugned proceedings being M.W. .Application No. 20t2021, pending on the file of the Regional Labour Commissicner (Central), Hyderabad, the Flespondent No. t herein, while declaring tl'riat the Central Government is not the appropriate Government under the Mininrum Wages Act, 1948 insofar as the Petitioner, being a non-Government lt/etro Railway and/or issue such further or other directions as this Honble Court may deem f t -nd proper in facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of costs of these proceedings. |.A.NO:1 OF.2022 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in N/.W. Applicaltion No. 2012021 , pending on the file of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, the Respondent No.1 herein, pending disposal of the writ petition. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Between

1. Authority under the fMinimum Wages Act and 7 others, 1948 and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar' Hyderabad - 500 007.

2. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

3. The Deputy Chief Labour, Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

4. The Asst Labour Commissioner, (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

5. Union of lndia, Rep. by its Under Secretary lr,4inistry of Labour and Employment Cential Secretariat New Delhi - 1 10 00'1 . .....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2,4, 5 & 8 AND 1 M/s.L and T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, a Company incorporated under tfre Companies Act, 1956,'having iis Registered Office- at Hyderabad Metro iiiit - AOininisttative Buildinq, Uppal Main Road, Nagole, Hyderabad, Teianqana - 500 039, representbd by its Head of Legal and Company SecreIary, Mr. Chandrachud D. Paliwal. ....PETITONER/RESPONDENT

2. M/s- Peregrine Guarding Private Limited, Rep..by.Laxman Chokkam Region^al - ibio Fio-t"Nor oolr , H.No.1-96-1 00 Kavuri Hitls,'Madhapur Hyderabad - 500

3. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Labour Department Telangana Se:retariat Hyderabad - 50O O22.

4. Hyderabad l\4etro Rail Limited, (A Government of Telangana Enterprise) Rasoolpura, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its lr/anaging Director ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition Unde' Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumt;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interrnr orders dated 04-03-2022 passed in l.A.Nc.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.1 1229 of 2022, and to dismiss the writ petrtion. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.R.SRIDHARAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G,V.S.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2,4,5 & 8 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - Counsel for the'Respondent No.6 : SRI KRISHNA SWAMY, GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRt P.RADHIVE REDDY W.P.NO: 11235 OF 2022 Between: L and T l\iletro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, h Company incorpo.ated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Hyderabad Metro Rail Administrative Buildirrg, Uppal l\4ain Road, Nagole, Hyderabad, Telangana-500 039, represented by its Flead of Legal and Company Secretary, Ir,4 r. Chandrachud D. Paliwal. .....PETITIONER AND '1 . The Authorit),under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyana,3irr, Hyderabad - 500 007.

2. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Rrad Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

3. M/s. Kapston F:acilities Management Limited, Rep. by its [\,4anaging Director/AG[vl HR Plot no.75,Kavuri hills,Madapur, Hyderabad. 500034.

4. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, llyderabad - 500 007.

5. The Asst Labour Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

6. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Labour Department . Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad - 5O0 022. 7. Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited, (A Government of Telangana Enterprise) Rasoolpura, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its Managing Director B. Union of lndia, Rep. by its Under Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment Central Secretariat New Delhi - 1 10 001 . .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, against the impugned proceedings being M.W. Application No. 2112021, pending on the file of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, the Respondent No. t herein, while declaring that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government under the lvlinimum Wages Act, 1948 insofar ,. th" P"titioner, being a non-Government lvletro Railway and/or issue such further or other directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of costs of' these proceedings. l.A.NO:1 OF 2022 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in M.W. Application No. 2112021 , pending on the file of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, the Relspondent No.1 herein, pending disposal of the writ petition. |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Between 1 . Authority under the tVinimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Regional Labour . Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

2. Labour Enforcr:ment Officer (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Rcad Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

3. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road . Vidyanagar, l{ Tderabad - 500 007. 4. The Asst Labour Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shiva rr Road Vidyanagar, llyderabad - 500 007.

5. Union of lndia, Rep. by its Under Secretary tvlinistry of Labour and Employment Central Secretariat New Delhi - 1 10 001 ...,.PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2, 4, 5 & 8 AND IVI/S.L and T fvletro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, a Company intxrrporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at l-lyderabad Metro Rail Adhinistrative Building, Uppal Main Road, Nagole, Hyderabad, Telangana-5r10 039, represbnted by its Head of Legal and Company Secretary, l\4r. Chandrachud D. Paliwal. .....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2 N//s. Kapstor Facilities lVlanagement Limited, Rep. by its N,4anaging Director/AGtr4 HR Plot no.75,Kavuri hills,l\,4adapu r, Hyd era bad -500034. 3. State of Telan,lana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Labour De:partment Telangana Se,:retariat Hyderabad - 50O O22.

4. Hyderabad tr'letro Rail Limited, (A Government of Telangana Enterprise) Rlsoolpura, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its Managing Director .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition Unde' Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumt;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 04-03-2022 passed in l.A.Nc.'1 of 2022 in W.P.No.1 1235 of 2022, and to dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.R.SRIDHARAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G.V.S.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 & 8 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI KRISHNA SWAMY, GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI P.RADHIVE REDDY W.P.NO: 11238 OF 2022 Between: L r'-and T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Hyderabad Metro Rail Administrative Building, Uppal Main Road, Nagole, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 039, represented by its Head of Legal and Company Secretary, Mr. Chandrachud D. Paliwal. .....PETITIONER AND 1 . The Authority under the l\rlinimum Wages Act, 1948, and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

2. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

3. It//s. Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Private Ltd, Rep. by APffS Regional Head Mr. Sudeep Das, Salarpuria Sattva Knowledge City, Level-9 Unit 2A-1 , Octave Phase-ll Sy.No.83/1, lnorbit lt/all Road Hitech City, Raidurg - 500 081.

4. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road . Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007. 5. The Asst Labour Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

6. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Labour Department Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad - 5O0 022.

7. Hyderabad IVIetro Rail Limited, (A Government of Telangana Enterprise) Rasoolpura, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its Managing Director.

8. Unlon of lndia, Rep. by its Under Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment Central Secretariat New Delhi - '1 10 001 . .,...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, against the impugned proceedings being M.W. Application No. 22t2021 , pending on the file of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, the Respondent No. t herein, while declaring that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government under the Minimum Wages Act, '1948 insofar as the Petitioner, being a non-Government Metro Railway and/or tssue. l.A.NO:1 OF 2022 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s,upport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedinr;s in l\,4.W. Application No.2212021, pending 3n the file of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, the Rr:spondent No 1 herein, pending disprsal of the writ petition. LA.NO:'1 OF 2024 Between ;

1. Authority uncler the IVtinimum Wages Act, 1948, and the Regional Labour Commrssioner (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

2. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)ATl Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

3. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007. n'

4. The Asst Labcur Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

5. Union of lndia Rep. by its Under Secretary tr/inistry of Labour Employment C)entral Secretariat New Delhi - 1 10 001 . 'end .....PETITIONERS/R.ESPONDENTS AND I Ir4/s.L and T t\'letro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, a Company inr:orporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at .tlyderabad Metro Rail Admin stratrve Building, Uppal Main Road, Nagols, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 039, represented by its Head of Legal and Company Secretary, Il4r. Chandrachud D. Paliwal. ....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

2. Mls. Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Private Ltd, Rep. by APffS Regional He,ad lt4r. Sudeep Das, Salarpuria Sattva Knowledge City, Level-9 Unit 2A-1, O,:tave Phase-ll Sy.No.B3/l, lnorbit Mall Road Hikrr;h City, Raidurg - 500 081.

3. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Labour Department Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad - 500 022.

4. Hyderabad fttletro Rail Limited, (A Government of Telangana Enterprise) Rasoolpura, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its Managing Director. .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS i",,,,o" under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vac.ate the interim orders dated 04-03-2022 passed in l.A.No.',l ol 2022 in w.P. No.1tZ:A of 2022, and to dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.R.SRIDHARAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G.V.S.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2,4,5 & 8 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INOIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI KRISHNA SWAMY, GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI P.RADHIVE REDDY W.P.N O:'11240 OF 2022 ,r: - Between: L and T lriletro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, a c_ompany incorporated.under the Corfrni". Act, i 956. having tti Registered. Office at Hvderabad Metro Rail Administrative Buitding, Uppai ilfuin Roid, flagote. Hyderabad,Telangana -590 939r ;;;;;;"Ga or.iti H6ho'or L"brr ;;?t;;i;", s'ecretary, Mr' chandrachud Dl Paliwal. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The Authority under the lt/inimum Wages Act, 1948 an-d.the Regional ,Labour Commission'er(Central),ATlCampus,ShivamRoadVidyanagar,HyderaDad - 500 007.

2. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, HYderabad - 500 007.

3. M/s. Keolis Hyderabad Mass Rapid Transit System Private Limited' Rep' 9y " ftfO Shyam Cil;dia Mishra Honda Building, Uppal lr/ain Road Hyderabad - 500 039.

4. The Deoutv Chief Labour, Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyinagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

5. The Asst Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, HYderabad - 500 007.

6. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal-S^e^cretary Labour Department Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad - 500 O22- T. Hvderabad Metro Rail Limited, (A Government of Telangana Enterprise) ' ffi;;;l;;;; aegumpet Hyderatiad - 500 016 Rep bv its Managing Director' 8 Union of lndia, Rep. by its Under Secretary t\/inistry of Labour and Employment Central Secretariat New Delhi - 1 10 001 . .....RESPONDENTS Petition Unde. Article 226 ol Ihe constitution of lndia pray'ing that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue zr writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate: writ, order or Direction, against lhe impugned proceedings being Ir/.W. Application No' 23t2021, pending on the file of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, the R.espondent No. t herein, while declaring th,at the Central Government is not the appropriate Government under the l\,4ininrum Wages Act, 1948 insofar as the Petitioner, being a non-Government Metro Railway and/or ISSUE |.A.NO:1 OF 2022 Petition Uncle,- Section 151 CPC praying that in the circums;lances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be cleased to stay all further proceedin,3s in tM.W. Application No. 2312021, pending on the file of the. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, the Respondent No.1 herein, pending disposal of the writ petition. l.A.NO:1 OF 2024

1. Authority uncle,r the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Regicral Labour Commissionr:r (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

2. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), ATI Campus, Shivam [load Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

3. The Deputy (lhief Labour, Commissioner (Central) ATI Campus, Shivam Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

4. The Asst Labour Commissioner (Central), ATI Campus, Shivarn Road Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

5. Union of lndia, Rep. by its Under Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment Central Secretariat New Delhi - 1 10 001 . .....PETITIONERSiRESPONDENTS 1, 2,4, 5 & 8 AND 1 M/s. L and T [Metro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Hyderabad tvletro Rail Administrative Building, Uppal Main Road, Nagole, Hyderabad, Telangana -500 039, represented by its Head of Legal and Company Secretary, Mr. Chandrachud D. Paliwal. .....PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

2. IM/s. Keolis Hyderabad l\/ass Rapid Tiansit System Private Limited, Rep. IVID Shyam Chandra Mishra Honda Building, Uppal lvlain Road Hyderaba 500 039. d-

3. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Labour Department Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad - 5OO 022.

4. Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited, (A Government of Telangana Enterprise) Rasoolpura, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its Managing Director .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in ; the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 04-03-2022 passed in l.A.No.1 o'f 2022 in W.P.No. 11240 of 2022, and to dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.R.SRIDHARAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI G.V.S.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2,4,5 &8: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI KRISHNA SWAMY, GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI P.RADHIVE REDDY The Court made the following COMMON ORDER 1 wp-11i 21-2022 & batch NBK, J TH HON ,BtE SRI IUSTICE AGES BHE MA KA os.tt22l tt22a, tlzzg, rt23s, ttz3a. and 11 4O ofZ022 CO MON O DER: Challengeirr[hesewritpetitionsiStotheactionofrespondentNos.l, 2,4, and 5, in initiating proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act' 1948' against the petiticner. ln view of commonality of subiect matteI these writ petitions were analogously heard and taken up for disposal by this Common Order. For referenc(r , the facts in W.PNo.1122 I of 2O22 are taken'

2. The plea de'd case of the petitioner as per the writ- affidavit in WP.No.11221 of 2022, is as follows: Petitioner-1,&T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, a company incorporated un, :t'the Companies Act, 1956, and having regist<:red office at Hyderabad Metro Rail Administrative Building was engaS;ed for the implementation c,f the Hyderabad Metro Rail Proiect under l)rrblic Private partnership IPP P-l model under the A.P. Municipal Tramways (construction, operation & Mai-rtenance Act) Act, 2008. Petitioner signed et concession Agreement with the then Government of Andhra Pradesh on 1ct.09.2010 for implementation of the Proiect under Design-Build- Finance-o pr:rate-Transfer IDBFOT) basis. O,rer 99% ofthe shares are owned by the petitionel and one share that has 260/o voting rights is owned by the Government of Telangana. Government ha:; formed a Nodal Agency by name "Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited" (HMRI,J for providing continuous support and monitoring of the project. Petitiorrer has started its operations of running metro trains with effect from 2g.'L-_-.201,7 , and the last section of Phase-i of the Metro Rail pro.iect became rllerational on 07 .02.2020. Prior approval of the Government of Telangana ttrrough the Nodal Agency HMRL was requirr:rl as per the 2 wp_1122L _2022 &betch NBK, J a, provisions ofConcession Agreement to be obtained for all project agreements and all other works/actions, ifany, undertaken by the Petitioner. During the Project stage [i.e., the construction stage), the Central Government, vide Notification No.S.O. 153[E) dated 24.01.2012 extended the provisions of the Metro Railways (Construction of Work) Act, 1.97 B (MRCW Act) to the Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad. Subsequently, by another Notification S.O.152[E) dared 24.01.2012, the provisions of Metro Railways (Operation & Maintenance) Act,2002 IMROM Act) were also extended to the Metropolitan area of Hyderabad. Thereaftel Notification S.0.2445(EJ dated 19.09.201.4 added the Metro Alignment of Hyderabad Metro Rail Corridors (Phase-ll in respect ofthe Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad to the Schedule ofthe MRCW Act. It is the case ofthe petitioner that HMRL is not carried on by or under the authorify of the Central Government, nor can it be construed as "Railway Administration" or a "Railway Company", and the judgment of the Madras High Court in WPNo.26995 of 2009 filed by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited, and WPNo.12931, of 2019 filed by CMRL Employees Union, cleared the air on the aspect of "appropriate Government" and it was held that the State Government would be appropriate Government insofar as the Metro Railways operated by Private Entities are concerned, and the petitioner is a non- government Metro Railwayas defined under Section 2(1)(l) of the MROM Act. While so, respondent No.2-Labour Enforcement Officer (CentralJ Hyderabad, issued a Notice dated 24.09.2074 to respondent No.7-HMRL seeking information about the Project and the Contractors, and consequently respondent No.7 addressed a letter dated 20.10.2014 to the petitioner; with a copy to respondent No.2 advising petitioner to submit necessary details. Thereaftec petitioner received another Notice dated LL.L1.2O1,4 from respondent No.2 stating that in view of the provisions of MROM Act being extended to the Project, various labour laws and Central Rules are applicable to the petitioner under the Minimum Wages Act, Contract Labour (Regulation ; i J I , wp-11r:21-2022 & batch NBK, J & Abolition) Act, 1c)7O,the Industrial Disputes Act' 1947 ' and advising that the Contractors of the petitioner shall obtain registrations and licenses from the officers concerned accordingly. Petitionet in response lo the said communications, rddressed a letter dated 116'12'2014 to resJrondent No'2 stating that the petitioner and its contractors are covered under the State Labour Authorities for all statutory compliances under the Labour Laws since inception of the l?r'oiect. Another Notice dated 24'12'2014 was rr:ceived from respondent No'5'Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)' Hyderabad' whereupon the petitioner had a meeting with respondent Irlo l-Regional Labour commissi,lner, and explained the position to hirn and als;o addressed lettersdated03.01.2015,|6.12.20|4,Petitionerstatesthattlr€,rewasatotal silence from respondents indicating agreement and the petitioller has been continuing to cornply with the applicable Labour Larvs towards the State Government of 'l:langana. After more than five years' the respondent No'5 issued a Notice, of Inspection under the Contract Labour ll{egulation & AbolitionJAct,lgT0(theCLRAActJvidee-maildated17.02.20,l-ostatingthat as per the directi'res of respondent No 4-Deputy Chief Labour tlommissioner (Central),Hyderabad,theinspectionofpetitionerestablishnrr:nthasbeen proposed on 18.02.2020. Petitioner submitted Ietter dateC 1'B '02 '2020 ' enclosingcopyo''itsearlierletterdated16'L2'2014reiteratingitsstandon the subject. However, respondent No'5 visited the establisrlLment of the petitioneronO2!..()"1-2020andpreparedanlnspectionNoteobservingthatthe petitioner has not obtained the Certificate of Registration from the Registering Officer of the Central Government under the CLP'\ Act The said Inspection Nol.e was followed by a Notice dated 03 03 2 020 alleging irregularities / non-compliances calling upon the petitioner to rectify the alleged irregularities and rep.ort compliance and also Show Cause as to why legal action shculd not be taken against the petitioner i:r the alleged irregularities, Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation vile letter dated 4 wp_11221_2022 & batch NBK, J

27.03.2020, howevet respondent No.2 launched prosecution vide STC No.1 of 2021 on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropoliran Magistrate of First Class, Nampally, Hyderabad. Against rhe said STC No.L of 2021, rhe petitioner filed criminal Petition No.1991 of 202L before this court seeking to quash the complaint and the said criminal petition is pending. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed WP.No.355B2 of 2014 questioning the levy of Cess under the BOCW Cess Act, 1996, inter alia on the ground that under the A.p Municipal Tramways (Construction, Operation & Maintenance) Act, 2008, a Metro Rail shall not be liable to pay any tax in aid ofthe funds ofany local authority, contending that the Cess under the BOCW Cess Act, 1996 is in the nature of tax, and BOCW Welfare Board is a local authority as defined under the General Clauses Act,

1897. Petitioner advanced an alternative contention in W.p.No.355B2 of2014 that the HMRL Project being a Railway Adminisrration, the Central Government will be the "appropriate Government" as per Section 2[a) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Petitionel howeve[ does not intend to press the said alternative plea. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents-Central authorities are harping on the said alternative plea to clutch on and exercise jurisdiction over the petitioner and the same is a highhanded and arbitrary action. Respondent No.2 issued Notice dated 05.03.2021to respondent No.3- Contractor alleging that respondent No.3 constitutes a Scheduled Employment under the Minimum Wages Act and there is a short payment of wages by respondent No.3 to its employees when Notification Nos.190[E] / 191(E) are applied. In fact, respondenr No.3 obtained license under CLRA Act from the State Labour Department and is complying with the Notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act by the State Government for the Schedule of Employment "Contract Labour Act" applicable to it. Similar ) I 5 wp-11Zil1-2022 & batch NBK, J notices were isstre,d by respondent No.2 to five other contractars. Petitioner sent a detailed L:tter dated 05.04-202L to respondent No.2, repllng all the six notices issuecl by him, reiterating its stand/contention rhat the said notices are malicious intimidation after six years and woull be legally impermissible itr law. Howevel, respondent No'Z, without considering the facts mentioned irl the said Reply, once again harping"on the alt(:rnative plea in W-P.No.3558,. of 201'4, vide letter dated 15.04.2021 stat'ed that the petitioner and it-s (lontractors come under central Labour Deoartment and that they shall comply with all the provisions of applicable €'nactments Central sphere which are enforceable by them Respondent No.2 proceeded to file Applications, i.e., MW Nos.1B, 20,21'22,23, and 24 of 20Zl against the Contractors and. the petitioner herein under Section 2 0 of the Minimum wages Act before respondent No.L claiming the alleged differential wages. It is the case of the petitioner thatthe petitioner being a non-goverllment metro Railway within l.he meaning of Section 2 (1) (l) of the MII(IM Act and consequently, it is r1either carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, nor is it a Railway Administration nor a Corporatirln established by the central []c,vernment so as to say that the central Government is the "appropriate Gov,-'rnment" under the Minimum Wages Act, ancl lherefore the impugned procee dings which are instituted against the contr:rr:tors and the petitionel, alleging differential wages, applying the Notifications issued bythe central Governrrent, which are not applicable to the petil.ioner and its Contractors even remotely, are wholly without lurisdiction ancl are liable to be prohibited by this Court by issuance of Writ of Prohibitiorr. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.1, 2, and' 5 being subordinate officers of respondent No.4-Deputy chief Labour commissione r (central), the Inspections have been carried on as per the directives ofthe respondent No.4 and therefore the exercise is futile and preludicial as it is bouncl by the dictate 6 wp _71221,_2022 & batch NBK, J of respondent No.4. Petitioner therefore assails the Proceedings instituted under MWApplication Nos.1B, 20, 2L, 22, 23, and, 24 of 202L, as void ab initio.

3. Heard Mr. C.R. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. G.V.S. Ganesh, learned counsel on record for the petitioners; Mr. Gadi Praveen Kuma4 learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.1,2,4,5 and B; Mr. Krishna Swamy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent No.6. Perused the record. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, while making

4. submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would primarily contend that the petitioner is a non-government Metro Railway under Section 2(1)(lJ ofthe MROM Act, and it is not carrying out its activities under the authority of Central Government or Railway Administration and therefore the institution of proceedings under the impugned MW Applications, seeking payment of differential wages, is illegal and arbitrary. It is contended that the petitioner comes under Section 2(b)[ii) of the Minimum Wages Act, wherein the "appropriate Government" is the State Government and therefore the respondent No.1-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) has no authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to institute the impugned proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel contending that the impugned proceedings are bound by the dictate ofrespondent No.4 who is the higher authority and therefore not impartial, relies on the iudgment in Filter Co. v. CSTI' He also relies on Collector of Customs v.Bavaz,K.S. Venkatraman & Co (P) Ltd. V. State ofMadras3, to contend that the petitioner raises an important question of interpretation of statutory provisions and therefore a writ remedy is the appropriate one, especially when an alternative remedy is an empty formality 1 (1986) 2 SCC 103 , AtR 1968 SC 13 . nrn 1g;e si ross 7 wp_11:lj:1_2022 & batch N8K, J as held in Thampu sugar Mills Ltd. v. state of u.P.a. Petitioner also relies on GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd v. State of A.P.s wherein this Court, referring to the case in Cochin International Airport Ltcl' V. Regional Labour Commissioner6, declared that the State Govern nlent is the "appropriate Government" but not the Central Government unler the CLRA Act. Learned Senior Counsel also relies on the iudgment ofthe High Court of Madras in Chennai Metro Rail Limitedz, and CMRL Employees Union8, wherein the High Court of Madras has extensively dealt with the provisions of MRCW Act, MR.rlM Act, and the ID Act, the Indian Railways l\ct, 1989 and resolved the conflict between the Central and State Labour Departments by declaring that the State Government Labour Department and itr; authorities are appropriate llovernment within the meaning ol- Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act insofar as Chennai Metro Railway Limited. Learned Senior Counsel lurther contends, relying on the iudgment of this Court in Group4 Securilas Guarding Private Limited v' Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)e, wherein it was held that though the petitioner therein fGroup4 Securitas) is rendering services to the Bank (a Central r-r ndertakingJ, the petitioner is not amenable to the Central Government.iurisd ic'tion and the appropriate Govr:r'nment for the petitioner is the State Governnrr:nt. Learned Senior Counsel further relies on Victor loseph, Regional Managing Directof,, Group4 Securities Guarding Limited v' State10, wherein it was held that the Centr-al Government is not the appropriate Govr:rnment, and therebythe complaint lodged by the officer of Central Governme'trt for alleged violation of provisions of Section 24 of the CLRA Act, was quashed. Learned 4 (2007) 8 scc 338 s wP No.24041 of 2oo8 6 2oo9 (2) KU 232 , w-pNo.25995 cf"r2009 (Madras High Caurt)- 3 w-P.No.12931 of 2019 {Madras Hi8h Court) s W.P.No.3198 of 2006 (Telangana & A.p High Court) 10 2006 (2) LLN 259 8 wp_7L22l_2022 & batch NBK, J Senior Counsel further relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of Patna High Court in P.R Catering v. State of Bihar11, wherein the Court relied on Carisbad Mineral Water Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V. P.K. Sarkarlz, and held that the business of Food and Beverages carried on under the license from Central Government/Railway Administration for supply at different Railway Stations on running trains cannot be said to be carried on by the Central Government or under the authority of the Central Government and consequently, the complied filed by the Central Government was quashed. Learned Senior Counsel also relies on M/s East India Commercial Co. Ltd., v. Collector of Customsl3, Durvasula Sambamurthy, Formerly Block Development Officer; Panchayat Samithi, Pithapuram, Now District Panchayat Officer; Nellore v The Collecto[ East Godavari District, Kakinadala, N.G. Panga v. The Election Commission, Indials, Filterco v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh16. Learned Deputy Solicitor General, basing on the counter affidavit filed

5. on behalf of respondent Nos.i- ,2, 4,5 and,B, would primarily contend that the provisions of Metro Railway fOperation and MaintenanceJ Act, 2002 refer only tb the Central Government, and therefore the Metro Railway is functioning only under the control of Central Government. It is contended that the HMRL Project falls under Metro Railway Administration and under Section 45 of the Metro Railway (Construction of WorksJ Act, 1978, the Central Government is the appropriate Government for the petitioner. It is contended that the Central Government is the appropriate Government even under CLRA Act, and also the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and that even the petitioner has confirmed in their sworn affidavit in W.P.No.355B2 of 2rO14 11 2oo2-t-Lt-221 1'z Al1395}cal. Page 6 13 AtR 1962 SC 1893 14 1979 SCC Online AP 86 's 1970 (2) AnwR 2s5 16 (1986) 2 SCC 103 9 wp_11221_2022 & batch NBK, J before this court that the appropriate Government is the central (iovernment for HMRL' It iS st:rted in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit as fbllows: "15. ln reply to Para 3(i) it is submifted that under Section 43 of MRCW Act it is very much true that M/s L&T Metro Rail Hyderabad Ltd has filed a writ petition (Special Original Jurisdiction) before the Hon'ble High Courtof Hyderabad videWP No'35582 of 2014 in which M/s L&T Metro Rail Hyderabad ltd admitted that under Section 43 of the Act, the provisions of the lndian Railways Act, 1890 are applicable to the works of the Metro Railways under Section 43 of the MRCW Act."

6. It is further contended by the learned Deputy Solicitor Ge n eral that the lndian Railways Act, 1890, is applicable to the works of the Metro Railways under Section.4:l of the Metro Railways [Construction Works) 1\ct, 198 and that the Central iS,lvernment had extended the MRoM Act and MRCW Act to the Metropolitan lirea of Hyderabad vide Notifications dated 24 ltL '201'2' and' therefore the HNIIII- is under MRCW Act, 1978 and not under.,\P Tramways Act, 2008. It is contended that in 2014, no inspection was carrir-d out and no legal action was jnitiated as there was no cause of action in that year to initiate a legal ac1-ion. It is contended that on 05.03.2021, 09.03.2O2L, and, tO.O3.2021,, out cl' l1 Iisted estabtishments, the following six es;tablishments were inspected ;Ird observed that the contractors of the petitirlner are not paying the notified minimum wages to workers based on the records produced, and th.ere is a less payment of P.s.3,67,78 ,BB4 / -' ltis contended that inspection has be,-rr.t conducted on 02.03.2020 by respondent Irlo.5 -Assistant Labour Commiss oner (CentralJ Hyderabad, and Inspection Report-cum- Show Cause notjce dated 03.03.2020 was served by name to Mr KVB Reddy, MD & CEO of M,/s I-&T Metro Rail (Hyderabad) Limited, but ar; on today, no reply was receivr:<l from the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Head Human Resoupce6, submitted a reply without any power of delegati'ln to sign on t I t 10 wp_l1221_2022 & batch NBK, J behalf of the petitioner on 27.03.2020. The replywas examined and it is found that the reply was submitted without scrutinizing the existing facts on record, and the petitioner willfully disobeyed the notices served under CLRA Act, and therefore issuing subsequent notices does not arise. It is further contended that the Central Government has extended the MROM Act, and MRCW Act, to the Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad, and the HMRL Project falls under Metro Railway Administration under MRCW Act, and under section 43 of MRCW Act read with section 184 ofthe Railways Act, 1989, and further the petitioner on record admitred that the HMRL Proiect falls under MRCW Act and MROM Act. It is also contended that the petitioner has admitted that the provisions of MRCWAct,RailwaysAct,lg8gareapplicable,assuchitisMetroRailway Administration and hence the central Government is the appropriate Government under both the Industrial Disputes Act,1,947 and the Minimum WagesAct,l.g48,andthereforethestateGovernmentofficialshaveno jurisdiction over the HMRL Proiect. It is contended that the petitione4 to avoid 1olo cess under the Building and other construction workers Act' 1996, has admifted that Central Government is the appropriate Government' and now to avoid payment of minimum wages as per Central Government' is taking a totally different stand that central Government is not the appropriate Government, and the petitioner is adopting double-standards to suit its convenience with a view to get away with statutory liabilities under labour laws as the minimum wages notified by the central Government are higher than the state Government. It is contended that the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Hyderabad, has conducted inspection on O2'03'2027 and issued Inspection Report-cum-Show Cause notice to rectifir the violations pointed out in the Inspection Report. It is further contended' by drawing of the Minimum Wages Act, that appropriate attention to Section 2 (b) Government means: 11 wp_11i 21_2022 & batch NBK, J (i) ln relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the [3] [Central Government, or a railway administrationl, or in relation to a mine, oilfield, or major port, or any corporation established by [a] [a central Actl, the Central Government, and (iD ln relation to any other scheduled employment, the State Government; Learned Deputy Solicitor General draws attention to parrrgraph 21 of the counter affideLvit of 2na respondent, wherein it is stated as follows: "21. ln reply to Para 3(q) & (r) it is submifted that Section 2(b) of the MW Act defines the expression 'appropriate government' as under: (b) "appropriate Government means: - (i) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authoriW of the [3] [Central Government or a railway administration], or in relation to a mine, oilfield or major port, or any corporation established by [ ] [a Central Act], the Central Government, and (ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the State Government;

22. lt is submitted that as per the above definition, the works namely Housekeeping, Security and maintenance execqted bv the Contractors engaged by M/s L&T Metro Rail Hyderabad Ltd., are scheduled employments for which Central Government is the appropriate government and accordingly Minimum rates of wages have to paid as fixed by the Central Government. lt is to submit that 'railway administration' as per Act it does not mentioned anywhere about.Private Railway or public railway it is only mentioned as 'railway administration', more over the petitioner company itself engaged in providing railway services and the workers are engaged a ! t i, & t2 wp _712)7_2022 & batch NBK, J in scheduled employments viz., Housekeeping, Security and maintenance. Hence the petitioners has to pay the minimum wages fixed by the Central Government. It is contended that the 1.r respondent-Authority under the Minimum Wages Act is independent and appointed by the appropriate Government by Notification in the Gazette to hear and decide the case, and the power ofthe Authority is vested by legislation and the direction of the Authority is final and the respondent No.4-Deputy Chief Commissioner of Labour is only administration authority who cannot interfere in the quasi-judicial functioning of the 1.t respondent-Authority. It is contended that the case in Filter Co. v. CST (supra) is under Sales Tax Act, not connected to the present case. Learned-counsel refers to Section 20 on "Claims" under the Minimum Wages Act, and submits that the petitione5, without exhausting the remedy provided under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, filed this writ petition to deny the statutory minimum wages to the poor workers. It is contended that the case in GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited (supra) is not relevant as it pertains to the appropriate Government for ?ir Transport services", and the present case is of "Railway administration" for whom the Central Government is the appropriate Government. It is also contended that Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., (supra) and CMRL Employees (supra) are not relevant to the present case as those cases are in relation to entertaining disputes ofTrade Union, but in the instant case, the dispute is regarding palrment of minimum wages fixed by the Central Government. It is also contended that the case in Group4 Securitas fsupra) and PR Catering (supra) also do not relate to the present case, and in Carisbad Mineral Water Manufacturing (supra), which is a case pertaining to appropriate Government for an industry carried on by or under the 13 wp_112,11_2022 & batch NBK, J Authority of th,: Government, and in the instant case the appropriate Government is th€ Cenffal Government. Learned Deputy Solicitor General relies on the iudgment 'rf the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Peoples union for DemocraticrT to conl:end that the Supreme Court ht:ld that whenever construction work is being carried out either departmentally or through contractors, the goVernmenl ':r any other governmental aulhority including a public sector corporation which is carrying out such work must take great care to see that the provisions of Labour laws are strictly observed and they should not wait for alty complaint to be received from workmen in regard to non-observance of any such provision. It is contended that the petitioner has taken contradi(ltory versions with regard to th e a ppropriate Government in W.P'No.3 5582 of |Zt)14, and this writ petition, -w ith a mala t'ide intent to deny the rightful wages to the laboul and the petitioner is liabte for payment of wages as fixed by the Central Government as the Central Government is the appropriate Government. It is contended that rnore than 15000 workers are directly and advt:rsely affected with their stand ald of living due to drawing of less wages than those notified by the Central Gotrernment, and therefore the writ petition has tto merit. Learned hssistant Government Pleader for respondent Nc'.6, basing on

7. the counter affirtavit, contends that the MRCW Act, 1978 is a Central Act and the writ petitioner is having claims by depending on the Central Act, and that the 6th respondent is purely a formal party. It is also contended that the matter is pu rely between the petitioner and the Central Gorn:rnment and there is no invol.rement of the State Government, and all the documents relied on by the petitioner pertains to different disputes that do not pertain to the State Governme nt. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the State Government reads as follows: 17 1982 AIR 1473 : t t' )l ' 74 wp_U221_2022 & batch NBK, J "7. Moreover this respondent is made as party which is purely formal in nature as such the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. ....... There is no such involvement of the State Government in addition of the above exhibits annexed with the writ petition substantially established that the matter is exclusively pertain to petitioner and Central Government. Even otherwis-e the definition of "appropriate Government', clearly define in the minimum wages Act under Section 2(l ): "Appropriate Govemment" means, in relation to railways, air transport seryrces, mines and oilfietds, the Central Government and in retation to alt other cases, fhe State Government". All the documents relying by the writ petitioner is pertains to different disputes which is not pertains to the State Government as such the above writ petition is liable to be dismissed.,, B. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the record, it is pertinent to note that Section 2[b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, makes it clear that the Central Government is the appropriate government for employments carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, railway administration, mines, oilfields, maior ports, or any corporation established by a Central Act. It may be noted that the Central Government, in the year 2012, issued Notificarions vide S.O.No.153(E) and S.O.No.152(E) extending the provisions of Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, and the Metro Railways fConstruction of Works) Act, to the Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad, thereby placing the HMRL Proiect under the jurisdiction of the Central Government. It may be noted that when the Central Government issued Notification bringing the Metropolitan Area into the fold of MROM Act, and MRCW Act, the contention of the petitioner that it is a non- I \ 15 wp_112.21-2022 & batch NBK, J government entLl/ or a private entity becomes irrelevant' as' €'ssentially authority whoevt:r is operating the HMRL would be amenable to the jurisdiction of th,r Cental Government as the MROM Act itself places the HMRLProiectundt:rthejurisdictionoftheCentralGovernmentFurther;the Concession Agree ment and the A.P Municipal Tramways Act Z00B do not override the appl cability ofthe MROM Act Further it is the specific stand of respondent No.6-State Government that the matter is exclusiveiy between the The Gazette Notification dated petitioner and lentral Government'

24.01.2012 reacls as follows: Ministry of Urban DeveloPment (Metro Rail Cell) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 24th January,2012 S.O. 152(E) - ln exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Metro Railways (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2002 (60 of 2002)' the Central Governnrent after consultation with the Government of Andhra Pradesh' hereby extend the provisions of the said Act to the metropolitan area of Hyderabad, as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Hyderabad MetropolitanDevelopmentAuthodtyAct,200s(AndhraPradeshActSof2003)' with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the official Gazette. (F.No'K-1 401 1 /31/2005-Metro) BIMAL KUJUR, Under SecY NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 24th January 2012 S.O. 153(E) - ln exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 93) of Section 1 of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (33 of 1978)' the Central Governmen! aft.e r consultation with the Government of Andhra Pradesh' hereby extend the provisions of the said Act to the metropolitan area of Hyderabad' as specified in sub-section ({) of Section 3 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan DevelopmentAuthorityAct,200s(AndhraPradeshActSof200S),witheffectfrom the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette' (F.No.K-{ 401 1 /31 /2005-Metro) BIMAL KUJUR, Under Secy i [: 16 wp_11221_2022 & batch

9. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel that a writ remedy is appropriate in the instant case, on the premise that alternative remedy is an empty formality, cannot be countenanced for the reason that the 1$ respondent-A uthority is a quasi-judicial, independent authority, and the addressing of correspondence by respondent No.4-Deputy Chief Labour Commissione4 who is the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, cannot be said to prejudice the petitioner's case or unduly influence the 1.t respondent.

10. With respect to the judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitione4 it may be noted that in Group4 Securitas (supra), the petitioner therein was a company established under the A.p Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, and it was rendering services to the Bank, a Central Undertaking. [t may be noted that the petitioner's security services were not brought within the Central jurisdiction. In the instant case, the petitionel which is an establishment under the Companies Act, is entrusted to implement the HMRL Project under the Public private partnership mode[, and the Central Government by the aforesaid Notifications extended the applicability of MRCW Act, and MR0M Act to the Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad. The Construction Works, and the Operation and Maintenance aspects essentially include the activities carried out by the Contractors under the petitionet thereby the Notification has an overarching effec! bringing within its realm the issues touching upon those services, which include payment of minimum wages. The interpretation of appropriate Government under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, draws inference and conclusion from the Acts operating on the establishment. The instant case stands on a different footing than the one in Group4 Securitas [supra). 11,. Similarly in Cochin International Airport Ltd (supra), the point that clinched the issue of "appropriate Government" is whether the Air Transport 17 wp_1.12 21,2022 & batch NBK, J license that was granted by the State Government was capable of revocation' and if it is revoked then alone it could seek registration of the r::;tablishment with the registerillll authority under Central Governmellt ln the instant case' it is the specific plea of the respondent-authorities that upon issuance of Central Governrn(lnt Notification, the Central Government authorities have communicated to the petitioner to obtain necessary regist-rations and licenses from the central Government, and it has been the consistent stand of the state Governntent that the issue is between the petitioner and the central Government. The petitioner abstained from obtaining necessarlr registration onthepremisethatitiScomplyingwiththestatutorylabourla'yr,softheState Government. It rnay be noted that the petitionel on the one hand, took shelter claiming iurisdiction of Central Government in the face of proceedings under BOCW Act in WP No.35582 of 2014, and thereafter disowns it:; own Stand in these writ petitic,ns. Petitioner is estopped from raising contradictory pleas with regard to thrl same point in two separate proceedings'

12. In the cas,: in CMRL Employees Union (supra), the tligh Court of Madras held th:rt the Special Act enacted to deal with Metro Ilailways alone will prevail over other statutes, however further held that c,lnsidering the administration set up as well as entire functioning of proierct, the state Government Authorities be construed as appropriate Governtnent. The case in GMRL is dist.inguishable from the present case as the petitione4 though engaged for implementation of HMRL project by the State Government in the initial stages, du:.ing the construction stage, the central Government issued Notifications extending the MROM Act, and MRCW Act to thr: Metropolitan Area of Hyderab:r<i, and therefore it cannot be said that the p':titioner is not bound by the mitrimum wages fixed by the Central Government'

13. The casr: in East India Commercial Co. Ltd fsupra) relates to payment of cur;t,lms duty. The cases in Durvasula Sambamurthy (supra) I I i t I I:I 18 wp_11221_2022 &tbatch i-_ . relating to the issue of Date of Birth, and N.G. panga (supra) relating ro disqualification in Erections under Article 103 of the constitution and the vires of an act done with assumed jurisdiction; and the case in Filterco (supra) relating to eligibiliry for exemption of sales Tax on woolen cloth manufactured by the petitioner therein, are distinguishable on facts, as, in the instant case, the matter relates to compliance of Iaw on minimum wages as per centrar enactment. The case-law relied on by the petitioner is distinguishable both on facts and raw. Further; the contention that a writ remedy is the only appropriate remedy, on the premise of prejudice or futility of exercise before the rsr respondent, is an unfounded assumption that is without basis. In that view of the mattec rhis court does not find any iilegality or impropriety in the impugned Apptications instituted before. the 1.t respondent-Authority.

14. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Interim stay, if any, in these writ petitions stands vacated. Miscelaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. I To I 2 3 SA GJP //TRUE COPY/I SD/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSI T T REGISTRAR ION OFFICER . Two CC's to G.P FOR LABOUR' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad. (OUT) ij'": #i"" dRt C.v.s.cnuesH, Advocate to-ly.gl. one cc to sRl GADI t*oi'?t'i ?i''iliH' oEpurY sollclroR GENERAL ' Of f f.fOfn Advocate [OPl'lCl . il;'i"i'; SniF.nnoHrve neooY' Advocate (oPUC) . Two CD CoPies 4 5 HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 COMMON ORDER C.C. TODAY aS TATI: o 1 v Ct /) .a A 15 * ','rn' +,) ,'., =#" W.P.NOS:11221 .11228.11229.11235. 1238 AND 11240 0F 2022 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS. I // ,49