The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: MS. K. SOUJANYA, REPRESiE:NTING SRI G. VIDYA SAGAR, Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER t s t t 1 t I * a 1 a t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.213a6 ()F 2005 ORDER: ' Aggrieved by the Award dared I2.OZ.2OOS in I.D.No.47 of 20O1 passed by the Labour Court, Hyderabad, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition.

2. Heard Ms.K.Soulanya, learned counsel representing Sri G.Vrd_va Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petrtioners submits that the ljs in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the adjudication of rhis Court in its order dated O3.O3.2O17 in W.P.No.6161 of 2OO7, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court uide judgment dated 17. 17.2022 in W.A. No.l297 of 2017. Therelbre, learned counsel prays this Court to pass similar order in the present Writ Petition also.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, while acceding to the above made submissions, contends lhat the respondent Corporation preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme ( 2 PK.J \! p 21.186 20Oj Court uide SLP (Civil) No.13004 of 2023 and the same is pending consideration

5. Having regard Lo the submissions made by earned counsel for the respective parties, this Court deems it appor;ite to refer to the operative portion ol the order dated O3.03.2O17 in W P No 6161 of 2OO7 , which is extracted hereunder: " 13) Hauing rellar(l to ctll the focts and in uiew of the int ?ttn dtection alreadg giuen bg the Courl on 26.03.2007 to continue the petitioners tn seruice arrd tllere is tto vqcat[orr of the staA all througtL despte the direction supra atcl uthen same s complied with and 'rL tlrc factual matny, it is JL-sf to dtrect the respon(ients to reguloize tLte serutces oJ the petitioners ot least fron the date of rtling of the LUnt pe'tition and hotueuer, it is made ctear tlLat the petitioners are not entltled to anears of wages but for in fLration of paA to giue ang notionql in:,r'zrnents lt rs rnade clear that this order shall not preclude the entitll rrom reducing Its suaplus merl poLDer, rJ an'-.t1, n accord.ance with lanu L')ilh attendant benefts equallA of the petitloners, if any, on reguLaizatton'" In terms of the afore-stated order and for the r(lasons alike in

6. the said order, this Writ Petition is iiable to be rlisposed of in similar lines.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 03.O3.2O17 in W.P.No.6161 of 2OO7. Miscellaneous pctitions pending. if any, shtil) stand closed' There shall bc no order as Lo costs t i //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.11.S. GOWRI SH ATiSISTANT REG 6 ANKAR ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, r

1. The Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Hyderabad' i iil. cni"i CiVrt Ensineer-i neSry1q Niushirabad. Hsderabad . 5 rH. cr,i.f Civil En[ineer-rr. npSafC, Mu-she^er.a.baf -1'rderabad' 4 The Executive Engineer i i;;l;;) ]CSRTC Musheer'abad' Hvderabad S. One CC to lvl/s. K. Udaya Sri. Advocate IOPUU] 7 t I t a I t * t Hyderabad [OUT] 6 Two CCs to GP for Labour, High Court for the State of Telangana, at T One CC to Sri R Anurag (SC for TSRTC) [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies \ TJ Along with the Copy of Order dated 03.03.2017 ln W.P.No.6161 ot 20071 I -; -4-rdl t a i a a a ,r t f a ., HIGH COURT DATED:01 10812025 ORDER WP.No.21386 of 2005 I t ( or lHE S TA C) 2 B tl0il 2025 7,z * {.\ \.:. ,r ._ * tll; DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS L ,{ \\ \ HON'BLE Dr. WSTICE B.SryA SANKARA RAO W.P. No.6161 OF 2OO7 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed under Ar1iicle 226 of Constitution of India by the petitioners, who are 19 in number of whom 1"t petitioner is A.P.S.R.T.C Employees Union, represented by its General Secretary and the others are the individual employees attached to the said union, against six respondents viz., 1) Presiding Ofhcer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, 2) A.P.S.R.T.C, represented by its Managing director, Musheerabad Hyderabad, 3) Chief Civil Engineer-Il, A.P.S.R.T.C, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, 4) Executive Engineer (Projects), A.P.S.R.T.C, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, 5) Executive Engineer (Hqrs), A.P.S.R.T.C, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 6) Executive Engineer (Rural), A.P.S.R.T.C, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, for the following reliel "...to issue aI order or direction or more particularly one il the nature of Writ of Certiorari and after calLing for the records in I.D. No.28 of 2001 dated 22.Oa.2OOs on the file of Ia.bour Court, Hyderabad quash t}Ie same and consequently direct the respondents to reg:Iraize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice." 2l In seeking the aforesaid relief, the General secretarJr of lst petitioner Union on behalf of the petitioners filed the supporting affrdavit, stating that the petitioners 2 to 19 supra were being engaged and working as Man Mazdoor (non technical) and Man Mazdoor (Technical) ill Civil Engineering Department of APSRTC for construction of Bus Depots, Oflice Complexes and Kalyana Mandapam etc., and also for maintenance of the offrce building of 2 Or SSRB,I l,P_6161_2007 the Corporation including Kalyana Mandapam situated at Hyderabad and they were being paid on daily wages irL terms of Standard Schedule rates notilied by the Corporation e.s per the circulars issued from time to time and ttrey wr rr: working continuousl5r from the year 1988 and the Corporati,)r has also issued a crrcular for issue of Identity Cards to the worl:e.s working in the Civil Engineering Department, vide circular No 1/2000-LD, dated 15.03.200O and again by Circular PD.No.37l2000, dated 28:o.6.20O0, ard the) were also shown in the list subrri,ted by the Executive Engineer (Projects) vide letter No.A3/232(L)196-EE (P) dated 15.11.1996. The said list was prepared in tenns of Circular No.PD-8/93, dated 20.01.1993 directing all th,r Executive Engineers to submit a comprehensive report wit I regard to engagement of the workrnen in Civil Engineering Department. AJthough, petitioners worlcnen are functioning direcrly under the control of the Assistant Engineers of the respective D,lpartments concerned, they were being termed as tontract 1al,orrr', though there is no contractor engaged for execution of aforesriC works, in which the petitioners workmen are working, and it shrxvs only to deprive the regularization of their services, the t([n 'contract labour' is used. 3) It is submitted that earlier when t r€. workmen concerned along with others Eled W.P. No.4139 of 1998 for regularisation of their services in the Corporation, rLe respondent Corporation has taken a stand that the petitioners ,vr:re engaged by the Contractor and there is no liability for the C orporation to regularise their services arrd this Court on a consid:ration of the rival contentions and the lega1 position, dismissed the said writ 2 3 DTSSRB, J wP 6161 2007 petition by order dated ),3.O7.1999 directing the petitioners therein to approach the Labour Court/ Industrial tribunal for appropriate relief. Pursuant to the said orders, the Union has taken up the matter by raising a dispute under Industdal disputes Act, \947 before the Assistant Commissioner of l,abour, Circle-III, Hyderabad, wherein conciliation proceedings ended in failure Thereafter, Government of A.P vide G.O Rt.No.2495, dated O5.L2.2OOO, was pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Hyderabad as to whelhet 22 workmen as shown in the alnexure are justihed in demanding regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment in the Corporation, if not to what relief the workmen are entitled to, and the said dispute was registered as I.D. No.28 of 2O01 before the Labour Court, Hyderabad, wherein the 1"t petitioner Union fiied a detailed claim statement stating that there are no contractors in between the petitioners workmen and the management and that they are working for the Corporation and the Corporation is paying their salaries in terms of the circula-rs issued from time to time under Standard Schedule Rates notifred and they also pleaded that they are being paid salaries directly by the corporation and they were also issued with Identity Cards for attending their duties and the nature of work performed by them is permanent and perennial in nature, hence sought for regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits. 4l In fact, before the la.bour Court, t}le Corporation in its counter submitted that the civil works are being undertaken by allotting the same to the contractors on tender basis and the same 3 4 Dr SSRB, J !\, P 6151 2007 was followecl even for maintenance of the buildings an( ritructures of the Corporation and that the contractors are errgaging the workmen concerned to perform the works and they art lteing paid as per the Standard Rates published by the R & B D,rpartment from time to time. The Corporation also admitte d that the petitioners were issued with temporary Identity Cards, though they are not the staff members and thereby they are nor r:ntitled to claim as employees of Corporation and tempora-ry iss,re.nce of I.D cards is only for the purpose of better identification z s a securi[r measure, since they would be handling the departmerrtal material and nothing more and mere possession of ldentit5' Caj'ds or bus passes does not give any right much less to claim an.r employer and employee relationship with the Corporation. 5) The said award of the Labour Court I Hvderabad dated 22.O8.2OO5 in LD. No.28 of 2001, dismissing he claim for regularizaLion of their services is by holding that hej' are not entitled for the reasons that they got no written aPpoirltment orders, i{ at all to claim as employed by the -espondent- Corporation and also failed to prove their app)intment by respondent-RTC, there is nothing even to sho\ / eitl er thev have been appointed as employees of the Corporation or the salaries have been paid by Corporation directly to them, tha too, \rithout showing any initial appointment of them by the Corporation and continuity of service under the Corporation, they ar,: not entitled for reinstatement or regularization of their alleged se vices as they are not the employees of the Corporation. 4 5 Dr SSRB, J wP 6161 2007 6) It is impugning said award of the l,abour Court, the grounds urged in the writ petition vis-a-vis the oral submissions in the course of hearing are: (a) that the award of the Labour Court is illegal, arbitrary and baseless and outcome of failure to appreciate the reference made by the Govemment with regard to pa),rnent for regularisation of services of workmen from the date of initial appointment in the Corporation. Whereas Labour Court in its lirst paragraph of the award refers that the reference made is onlY to resolve the Industrial Dispute raised bythe workers to reinstate and regula-rize their services in the respondent orsanization. This itself would show the tota.l misconception and the also misconstruing the evidence available on record, including Exs.W1 to W60 proceeded on the presumption that the issue of identity cards, allotment of work schedule, experience certiflcate do not confer any right of employment with the respondent-Corporation, which is nothing but a failure to appreciate the said documentary evidence, which demonstrate that they are working with respondent corporation for it is not even the case of the Corporation that they have not been working under them and the only stand of Corporation is that the petitioners/ worlsnen are engaged through contractors, whereas the Labour Court proceeded on a divergent assumption and the findings of the Labour Court are self-contradictory, inasmuch as, at one stage, it proceeded to record that the petitioners are carrying out works at Civil department under the control of Executive Engineer (Projects), but the work executed by them is not as an employee of the respondent-CorPoration, but being the employees of the contractors. 5 6 Dr 55RB, J !r P_6161_2007 b) The Labour Court thereby failed to apprec a:e that no list of contractors produced to demonstrate that they a:e workmen through the contractors and the witness examined on l,ehalf of the management also failed to produce any record or an\ ljames are referred to under whom the petitioners workrnen are working, which show that there is no contractor engaged and petil.ioners are working onlf in Civil Engineering Department and the rlorporation, has to disprove the list of contractors under whom th I petitioners are w'orking, if at all to support their version . c) The Labour Court erred in obseninI that the petitioners failed to prove their appointment by the, respondent Corporation, though reference is only for regularisa ion of their services and nothing beyond, that too, for the etson after appointment Ietters are issued, the question of raising an industrial dispute for regularisation would not arise that even there is no written appointment letter to show that thtl have been employed by the Corporation, the work allotmenl ol schedule, issue of identity cards and experience certit'i(.ates would demonstrate that they have been employed for the Oorporation and executing the works, thereby the lower Court err:d in holding that there is no record to show that they have been altpointed as employee of the Corporation and their salaries have br:en paid by the Corporation directly having failed to note all the f-a:ts. d) In the case on hand, it is not the case of the Corporation that there was a contractor and tenders rvere offered to said contractor through whom the workmen were rvorking, and on the other hand, it is demonstrably proved thlt thel' were 6 7 DTSSRB,I wP 6161 2007 engaged for tlle services of the Corporation and there is no other intermediary between the workmen and the Corporation, except a ba-re statement that the workmen are being entrusted through contractors e) It is also the contention referring to the expression of the Apex court in Rann Slngh as Unlon oJ Indl(r\ that in determining the relationship of employer and employee all relevant facts and circumstances are required to be considered includlng the terms and conditions of contract with pragmatic approach instead of going by sole 'test of control' and mere fact of former employment by an independent contractor will not relieve the master of liability where the servant is in fact in his emplol'rnent. f) The other expression of the Apex Court relied upon is in HugsatnbhoiL Cdlicut as Alath Factory Thozhlla,lP, whereia it was held that wherever a worker or a grouP of workers to produce goods or services and those goods and services are for the business of another, that another, in fact, is the employer and the presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contradu is of no consequences. g) The other decision relied upon the Apex Court is in Brt4rra,t HeaW Electrlcals Llmlted as S\tdte oI U.P.3 wherein it was held that when appellant management did not produce records to show that the workmen were engaged through contractors, saying records are not available, adverse inference has ' zoo+ (r) scc rzo ' rgzS (q) scc zsu ' zoos (o) scc szs 7 8 Dr SSRB, J \^iP 5161 2007 to be dra$.n against the employer and the Labour Court ought not to have drarvn adverse inference in relation to uaion and contractor. 7l Whereas it is the submission of the learned counsel for respondents to the writ petition by supporting the ordrr,' award of the Labour Court that when there is no emplover ar d employee relationship, the question of regularization of senicc under the Corporation does not arise, leave about from what date and after '-.the. Constitution Bench expression of Uma Devi's cast in the year 2005-06, the earlier expressions have no sanctit). tc, serwe as precedents contra to Umadevi (supra). 8) Heard both sides as referred supra and pr;ru5sd the material on record. 9) Undisputedly, the reference made by the Government to the Labour Court is on entitlement of tbe 22 g'orkers for regularization, if any and from what data. The list prrepared in terms of circular No.PD-8/93, dated 2O.O1.1993 contli.r names of petitioners not in dispute despite specihc plea in the il.rit petition, if at all to rebut the same. It shows their services are engaged since prior to it to say since 1988 according to them. Undisputedly, ID cards also issued as emplo.'e:s of the Corporation. Further, on 18.12.2006, the managcrnent issued cheques to the workmen involved in the preserrt dispute, recommending exercise of PF contribution and the Deputy Executive Engineer, Ranga Reddy District, issued certiEcate dated

18.01.2007 indicating casual employees working under his conhol including the names of the petitioners, to show that t to petitioners 8 9 Dr sSRB, J wP_6161_2007 are working under the Corporation. There is an interim order dated 26.03.2007 passed in W.P.M.P. No.7881 of 2OO7 directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by suspending the operation of the award ofthe Industrial Tribunal in l.D. No.28 of 2001 dated 22.O4.2OO5. 10) Before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, on behalJ of the petitioners representing by Union, witness Nos.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B 1 to 860 were marked which contains I.D cards, bus passes for traveling to the work place and certiflcates of experience; and on behalf of the management Mws.l to 3 were examined and MO No.l to 6 were marked. Petitioner No.18 was examined as WW.1. According to him, in the month of June, 2000 they have requested conciliation officer for his intervention into the matter for non regularsiation of their services, upon which the conciliation offrcer had convened a meeting and conciliation failed. He submitted that he is working as Inspector (non-technical) and his post is equivalent to clerk, but they have not been paid sa-laries on par with other working employees of Corporation, though performing the same kind of work. WW-2 deposed that he is working as a technical Mastery in the Deputy Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer (Projects) Division of APSKIC, Musheerabad and relied on a bunch of Xerox copies of Identity Cards and Bus passes vide Exs.W-1 to W-99. WW-3 is also one of the petitioners, who is working as a Man Mazdoor. He deposed that despite representations to the Corporation, Corporation turned with a deaf year to their claim for regularization. However, WWs.l to 3 admitted categorica-lly in their cross examination tfiat to their claim that they have been appointed by the Corporation, 9 10 Dr SSR8, J wP 6161 2007 there are no appointment letters issued by RTC. M\ .I-Deputy Executive Engineer also deposed that the CorporrLtion never appointed any of these petitioners and they were nrt in the administrative rolls of the Corporation at any time an I they were never paid salaries by the Corporation and there is rLo employer and employee relationship between them and the Corporation. He further deposed that in order to execute Civil Enginer,ring works, as per the terms, he prepared estimates after taking approval from the competent authority, thereafter tenders were cal eri for from the registered contractors and the work was allotted tJ the lowest bidder. Depending on the value of work, the contr rctor has to employ technical and non-technical persons to carry out. the work. MW.2, who is working as Executive Engineer and N{W.3, \vho is working as Deputy Executive Engineer in the Corporation also deposed in similar lines. However, none of them sta e(l why they issued ID cards, why they made PF contribution, r,,hat are the duration and nature of works of what contractor arc :f so under whom anv of them worked and if so what is bar to isilre ID cards as workers under a specifrc contractor. It is not a case of none are qualified and or no vacancies. 11) Coming to the Constitution Bench exprr:ssion of the Apex Court in Secretdry, Statc ol Kar7[,c:tg,ka an d, others as Unt Dev( requires reference. The Apex Court n Uma Devi (supra) at Paras 53 & 54 it was clearly held as follorvs: "53, One aspect needs to be clarified. There nray be cases where irregular appointments (not itlegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore \/s. S.\'. Narayanappa (1967 l SCR 128), R.N. Nanjundapp r Vs. T. ' zooo 1+1 scc r 10 11 DrSSRE, J wP 6161 2007 Thimrnial (1972 1 SCC 4O9), and B.N. Nagarajan Vs. State of Karnataka (1979 4 SCC 507), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of dulv oualified rrerson stn dulv sanctioned vacant Dosts mrsht have been made and the emDlovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of rezularization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lisht of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this iudement. In that context, the Union of India, the State Govemments and their instrumentalities should take steps to resularize as a one time measure , the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to hll those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clariry that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on Ois judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

54. lt is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.' 12) From the above, in the case on hand, the claim of the petitioners is that they are in sewice since prior to 01.09.1988 was not disputed by respondent Corporation. Leave it as it is, in A, ManJula Bhashint Vs. The Managing Ditector, A.P, Womcnb Co-operathn Fina nce Cotporatlon Limite6, the Apex Court held that once the employee be NMR/Daily wage/consolidated/ contingent worker completed 5 years with continuing service as on

25.11.1993, would be within the Tnne of eligibility for regularization even as per G.O.Ms.No.2l2 dated 22.04.1994 by referring to UEa Devi (supra). 13) Having regard to all the facts and in view of the interim direction already given by the Court on 26.03.2007 to continue the ' zoog (e) scc +rr 11 72 Dr SSRB,I \!P 6151 2007 petitioners in service and there is no vacation of tro stay all through despite the direction supra and when same Ls complied with and in the factual matrix, it is just to direct the I espondents to regularize the services of the petitioners at least fron the date of frling of the writ petition and however, it is made ck ar that the petitioners are not entitled to arrears of wages but for in fixation of pay to give any notional increments. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the entity from reducilg its surplus man power, if any, in accordance with law with attend lrrt benefits equally of the petitioners, if any, on regularization. 14) Accordingly and in the result, the u'rit :etition is disposed of. 15) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, f any shall stand closed. No costs. Date:03.03.2017 kn1 JUSrICE Dr. B.SwA SAIIIIARA RAO 72