The High Court · 2025

LE SRI J USTI CE NAG ESH BHEE MA PAKA WRIT PETITIO N No. LO92 0o t2002 ORDER: The petitioner-Chief Engineer' lrrigation Department' invokes the iurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia' questioning the legality of the Award dated 05'03'2002 passed by the Labour Court-lll, Hyderabad' in l'D'No'162 of 1999' By the impugned Award, the Labour Court held that the workmen of the 18 Lift lrrigation Schemes who were on the paYroll as on 24'09'1996 are entitled to wages as per the Standard Schedule Rates (SSR) from August' 1996' onwards' and further held that the Government is liable to pay wages to the workmen until their services are terminated by due procedure under law' 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: ln the year 1972' the Government sanctioned 18 Lift lrrigation Schemes in respect of Nagarjuna Sagar Left Canals' vide GOMs'No'309' PWD Department' dated 70'10'7972' and GOMs'No'331' PWD Department, dated 18 11'1 972' Asper the G'Os" the Government shall bear Lf3,dof the expenditure and the remaining expenditure has to be borne by the beneficiaries of the lift irrigation proiect' The execution of the schemes to be taken up by the Chief Engineer' Nagariuna Sagar Project (NSP) by entering into an Agreement with the Cooperative Societies, and the responsibility of maintenance of projects was of the Cooperative Societies formed by the Beneficiaries of the projects' ,/ ) wp_1092o 2OO2 N8(,1 .i4 ln the year 1995, the Cooperative Societies faced financial difficulties, resulting in undue delays in completion of the Lift lrrigation Schemes, and therefore the Government declared their component of expenditure (i.e., Ll3'd share of expenditure) as the Share-Capital Grant of the Government to the Cooperative Societies. Thereafter, the Government issued Memo dated 20.09.1975 declaring the Lift lrrigation Schemes as the exclusive Schemes of Cooperative Societies. However, for various reasons, the Cooperative Societies could not complete the Schemes, and requested the Government to take over the Schemes and implement the renovation, operation and maintenance of the 18 Lift lrrigation Schemes. The Government issued GOMs No.151, dated 07.04.1982 taking over the 18 Lift lrrigation Schemes, and handed them over to the Andhra Pradesh State lrrigation Development Corporation Limited (APSIDC) on Agency basis, to cater to the renovation, operation and maintenance of the 18 Lift lrrigation Schemes. Pursuant thereto, the assets of all the 18 Lift lrrigation Schemes were handed over to APSIDC in April, 1982. APSIDC took up the renovation, operation and maintenance work of all the 18 Lift lrrigation Schemes and supplied water to the beneficiaries. The expenditure incurred towards renovation, operation and maintenance, including the wages of workers, was released from the Nagarjuna Sagar Project Funds based on the orders issued by the Government from time to time. 3 wp,10920,2002 N8K,I Subsequently, the Government issued GOMs'No'134' I&CAD' dated 25.09.1996 handing over all the 18 Lift lrrigation Schemes' in addition to some other Schemes being maintained by APSIDC' to the Cooperative Societies' As per the said GOMs'No'134' dated 25'09'L996' the Cooperative Societies themselves shall decide on the number of employees required for running the Schemes and the Societies will have full control over the workers' and the Societies will also bear the complete expenditure on that account' Thereafter, on 28'07'1997' the Lift lrrigation Employees Union' served a Strike Notice to the Chief Engineer' Nagarjuna Sagar Project' and also on Managing Director' APSIDC Ltd'' demanding to pay salaries from August, 1996 and also to regularise the services of 130 employees with immediate effect' The Chief Engineer' Nagarjuna Sagar Project' and also the Managing Director' APSIDC' denied their liability to pay wages' The conciliatory effort by the Additional Commissioner of Labour and concifiation officer, A.p., Hyderabad, faired, as the chief Engineer of Nagarjuna Sagar Project' and the Managing Director of APSIDC disowned the employees of Lift lrrigation Schemes contending that the employees belong to the Cooperative Societies' The employees contended that the Chief Engineer' Nagarjuna Sagar Pro.iect, took over the Lift lrrigation Schemes in the year 1982 and therefore the Chief Engineer is their employer' and the Chief Engineer did not follow the provisions of lndustrial Disputes Acl' 7947 ' lrrigation Schemes were transferred from one authority to another' and that the employees are entitled to absorption as regular employees by when the 4 wp 10920 2m2 NBK, J taking into consideration their long service and that the employees should be paid their due salaries. The Additional Commissioner of Labour reported failure of conciliation to the Chief Secretary to the Government. The Government refdrred the matter to the Labour Court under GORt.No.1507, dated 16.08.1999. The Labour Court registered the reference as l.D.No.L62 of 1999 and issued notices to the General Secretary, Lift lrrigation Employees Union, and to the Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project, and also to the Managing Director, APSIDC. The Labour Court, after due enquiry, passed the Award which is impugned in this writ petition.

3. Heard learned Government Pleader for lrrigation and Command Area Development appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondents, and Mr. Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel appearing for APSIDC Ltd. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-lrrigation Department, would assail the Award primarily contending the Employer-Employee relationship on the ground that the workers of 18 Cooperative Societies were never engaged by the Department and their wages were paid by the Societies only and the manner of payment of wages is no way connected to the Department and therefore there is no employer- employee relationship between the Government and the workers. lt is further contended that the expenditure incurred by the APSIDC towards renovation, operation and maintenance was alone reimbursed by 5 wp_1092O_2m2 NBK, J It is Lift as theY never APSIDC on the basis of orders of Government from time to time' of the L8 further contended that the particulars of workmen lrrigation Schemes are not known to the Department worked under the Nagarjuna Sagar Project' and the Government' vide GOMs.No.134, dated 25.09.1996 decided to handover the 18 Lift the Cooperative Societies for their future lrrigation Schemes to maintenance and that Water Cess was also not paid by the beneficiaries since 1982. lt is further contended that GOMs'No'L34 dated 25'09'1996 stipulated that the Cooperative Societies would decide on the number of employees required for running the Schemes and the Cooperative Societies would bear the entire expenditure on that account' lt i3 also contended that GOMs.No.115 dated 03'09'2OO1was issued directing the Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project' to ensure that all the Lift lrrigation Schemes were operative so as to be ready for handing over the Water User Associations as and when they are said Schemes to the the Chief Engineer would just ensure that the formed, and till then schemes are functional, and therefore the wages of workers are to be paid by the Cooperative Societies who therefore the Award Passed bY the Government to pay the wages is illegal and would be a heavy expenditure appointed the workers, Labour Court directing on the exchequer.

5. Learned counsel for the 1't respondent-Employees Union would contend, based on the counter affidavit, that the Government has taken owing to the financial over the entire 18 Lift lrrigation Schemes difficulties being faced by the Societies in maintaining them, and \ 6 wp_10920_2002 N8K, J adverting to the request of the Societies, the Government issued GOMs No.161, dated 07.04.1982 taking over the 18 Lift lrrigation Schemes, and handing them over to APSIDC. lt is contended that the wages of the employees of the lrrigation Schemes were paid out from the Nagarjuna Sagar Project Funds, and that the Government, acting through the Agency, is the employer of the workers. lt is contended that the writ petitioner has challenged the employer-employee relationship before the Labour Court, and the Labour Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and after referring to all the Government Orders in the matter, passed the Award holding that the Government is liable to pay the wages as per SSR rates to the employees from August 1996 onwards, and there is no ground that is not adverted to by the Labour Court in the impugned Award. Learned counsel would therefore contend that the challenge lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in 1) Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Employees Union v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limitedl with regard to circumstances under which High Court can exercise jurisdiction under 226 for issuance of Writ of Certiorari; 2) Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation limited v. Calcutta Electric Supply Workers Union2 with regard to necessity of notice to the workmen under Section 9-A of the lndustrial Disputes Act, on effecting change of employer; 3) Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd v. Their Employees3 with regard to the circumstances in which Article 1 1999 Lawsuit (AP) 743 'z 1993 Lawsuit SC 654 I 1959 Lawsuit (5C) 13 7 wp 10920 2m2 NBK,I 136 can be invoked by the Hon' ble Supreme Court against the order of Tribunals; 4) Associated Cement Companies Limited v' Cement Workers Kamdar Uniono with regard to scope of interference with an Award passed bY the Tribunal' 6. Learned counsel for 1't respondent refers to the judgment in Syed Yakoob v. K'S. Radhakrishnan5, with regard to the circumstances when a High Court can issue writ of Certiorari' lt was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows: " ..Thereis,however,nodoubtthatthejurisd.ictiontoissueawritof t'p"*iJo-iiJii"Ji"tion artd the'court exercising it is certiorari i. not entitled to *t 'l'"i'l'iptiiJ ""'n rhis.limitation necessarily means that find'"gl';'i*:i"l;I'r't-"a lv ir't inferior court or tribunal ' as a result or tne apirtiiation ot euiaen'" cannot be reopened or questioned in *'it pIJ"IIa];;;'o" error of law which is apparent on the face ot tne recoriL-n Ue-correctea by a writ but not an error of fac! however s'"'" [ ill;;ilga' t9 uetlir-1igard to a findins or fact recorded lv tnt trio'iari a-irit of certiora.ri can be issued if it is ii'J !'ig..rin-{ls' the shown that '' 'll"'iiilg 'tribunal--had admissible and material evidence' or 'ii"*ii"J- inadmissible evidence which has erroneously '"tutJio-"ilit had erroneou"rv a finding of fact is influenced tn" lttat wou'id be regarded as an error of law based on no which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari' 'rnoJinJi.-in*n.:i;ryy-'.ir "uiaini" lt is pertinent to note that the epitome of the grievance of the writ 7 . petitioner is with regard to the employer-employee relationship' and the liability of the Government to pay the wages to the employees of the 1st respondent-EmPloYee Union' ln this context, upon perusing the counter affidavit and the 8. judgments relied on by the learned counsel' this Court deems it relevant 4 1972 Lawsuit (5c) 177 s AtR 1964 5c 477 6 w9 _1O92O-2@2 N8(, J to refer to the contents of the Government Memo dated 02.11,.1996, which reads as follows. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH I & CAD (pw-Estt-2) DEPARTMENT Memo No.51752/Esft.Z9S-S dated 2.1 i.96 Sub:- Esft- | & CAD Deptt. - Representation of the Lift lrig. Co-Op Society Employees Union, Nagariunasagar Left Canal, Nalgonda Dist _ Regularisation of NMR Workers working in Lift lrign., Schemes as per A. p. Administrative Tribunal dt. 2l-3-95 in O.A.No.1312195 - Reg. Ref:- 1) From the C.E., NSP/E-|V-24668/9S pRR, dt.12Bl96. 2) From the ENC Lr. No.W1/A/EE-|UO&M/87218/89, dt. 13.2.89. 3) From the E.E., N.S. Dam Circle, N.S. Dam Hill Colony, V.p. North,Lr.No.3/WCE/ApStDC/83.t -C.E.dt.30.S.89. 4) From the E.E., t7D., N.S. Canat Divn. Lr. No.AB/AZ10799 Ej DT.7.9.89. 5) From the dt.11.4.89. EE, APSIDC Lr.No.lDC/EE/M|c/A1l89-90-, The attention of the Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar project is invited to his letter first cited and he is informed thatit as a fact that the employees of 18 Lift lrrgn. Co-Op Society Schemes have never been engaged by him, but it is also a fact that these societies have already been taken over by the Govt. during 19g2 and since then they have been paid their wages from the Nagarjunasagar project Fund. 2. ln this connection kind attention is invited to the reference 2d cited wherein the Engineer-inchief desired to have certain information for the absorption of the employees in question along with the remarks. ln the reference 3'd and 4h cited (copy enclosedJ the Superintending Engineer & Executive Engineer while fumishing the required information have recommended the Govt. for the absorption of 127 employees of the above societies taken over by the Govt. 3. ln view of the fact the Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar project is request to certify the service particulars of the employees in question and furnish the same to the Government urgenfly. To Amithabha Bhattacharya Secretary to Government a The chief Engineer, Nagarjunasagar project, - Hill Colony, Nalgonda Dist. \ i I I I 9 wp-1092O_2002 NBK,I -superintending Copy to: The Miryalguda, Nalgonda Oistrict' Engineer, NSLC Circle' Forwarded: BY Ordel sd/- Section Officer

9. A perusalof the Government Memo dated 02'11'1996 would show that the Government has taken over the Cooperative Societies during 1982 and the employees of the Cooperative Societies were paid wages fromtheProjectFundsofNagarjunasagarProiecteversince'andfurther the Engineer-in-Chief sought for certain information regarding 127 employees for absorption consequent to the taking over the Societies by the Government. This Government Memo dated 02'71'7996 is not in dispute, and it is clear from the Memo that there is employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the employees of 1't respondent-EmPloYee U nion' 10. Further, the G.O.Rt'No'333, lrrigation and CAD (Projects Wing) Department, dated 07'05'1988, specifies various posts' namely' Operators, Lascar, Watchman, Helper, and Operator-cum-Watchmen' and fixes their respective wages equivalent to 1987-88 SSRs of Hyderabad Circle. A perusal of paragraph No'2 of the said G'O'Rt would show that the Managing Director, APSIDC was permitted to pay the wages to the workers of 18 Cooperative Societies of NS Left Canals equivalent to the prevailing SSRs from 1988-89 onwards' and the G'O'Rt furtherstatesthattheconcurrenceoftheFinanceandPlanning(PW) Department was obtained vide U.o.No.175/F.Vl(1)/88-1 dated 10 wp_1m20_2002 NBX, J o

29.04.1988. Therefore, it cannot be said that payment to the workers would be a burden on the exchequer when the concurrence was already taken way back in the Year 1988.

11. Further, the Cross-Examination of M. Sriramulu, Executive Engineer, NSC Division, Miryalguda, before the Labour Court would show that the 18 Cooperative Societies have become part of Nagarjunasagar Project, thereby affirming the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and 1't respondent. The relevant portion of Cross examination of Mr.Sriramulu, Executive Engineer reads as follows: Cross-Examination: The Ayacut covered under 18 Cooperative societies are 36,456 acres. These 18 cooperative societies are in existence from 1972. The duty of cooperative societies is to regulate the supply of water to all the Ayacut lands. At the time of construction of the lift irrigation schemes in the year 1972, 113'd of expenditure was borne by the Government and the remaining Z3d was borne by the cooperative societies. lt is true that in the year 1982 the government of A.P. issued GOMS. No.l52, dl.l .4.1942 takang over all the l8 Lift lrrigation schemes, and in that G.O., it is mentioned that all these 18 schemes are part of Nagarjunasagar project. Later, the management of lift irrigation schemes were entrusted to A.P. State lrrigation Development Corporation on agency basis by the Government, for execution, operation and maintenance."

12. lt may be noted that APSIDC is as an Agency to manage the Lift lrrigation Schemes, apart from managing men and material engaged for the execution of lrrigation Schemes, however, as a matter of fact, it is the Government that is exercising control through the Agency.

13. The Hon' ble Supreme Court in Des Raj v. State of Punjab6 held that the lrrigation Department qualifies as "industry" under Section 2(j) 6 1988 (2) scc 537 11 wp-1o920 2m2 NBK,I of the lndustrial Disputes Act' Lg47 'The Labour Court' after due enqutry' having held that there is employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and workers of 1,t respondent-Emproyee union, observed that the Government ought to have put the workers on notice while changing their employer and thus committed violation of Section 9A of the lndustrial DisPutes Act' L4. At this juncture' it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh v' Municipal Council' SanaurT' wherein the apex Court has held at Paragraph 12 with regard to the "workman":

12. Section 2(s) contains an exhaustive definition of the term "workman"' tn" a""iiliti"" Lres within its ambit any person in any- industry to do any including "n "'pilnii""-employea manual,'n"rirri]'tx-iir"i' i"c't'ni""t''o'perational' clerical or supervisory *o'*"io'-i''J-o' ;;;;;11d''i o immaterial that the terms of emprovme"nt are not reduced into writing' The definition i""n dis-missed' discharsed or also includes " #il:;;tt"" with an industrial dispute or as a retrenched trr "t'""itt"" or whose-dismissal' discharge or retrenchment h":''l;;;il;i Ji"p*"' The last sesment or the consequence ' "'"-ili"oG definition tp""irilt'llt"'ii'eictusions' a person to whom the AiI ii"I't' a"t' rsso' or the Navv Act' 1957' is Force Act, "to"li applicable t' *nJi"'"-"Giti"Jii ttt" police service as an officer o' who-is. emploved mainlv in or other "tplt;;;'f'piitin capacity or-who is employed in a managerial o' ;;;; drawing specified wases per mensum "'o''iin'it*"[ive supervisory "";;i'v does not fall within the or exercises "'"""ti'*"'i"'nJ'ii'ti"ttn" definition of the term "workman"' 13. The source of employment' the melhod of recruitnent' the ''.i'"mploymenucontract of service' the terms and ".^0,i".. quantumot""i"'17p"'v""nii'i"-iiI""r#3:I.1",::t;;ltil illevant for deciding whether or not a pers( rhe meaning .t'i"t",,r"ii"j oi tn" ait lt is apposite to observe does not make any distinction that the aefinitiJn?wo'ft"n "t"o betvveen turr+irle InJ p"n+i-" employee or a person appointed on contract oi!=tt"i#t" is nottring-in the plain language of ? (2011) 6 SCC 584 L2 wp_10920 2002 NBK I Sectaon 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only a person employed on a regular basis or a person employed for doing whole-time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part-time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. 14. Whenever an employer challenges the maintainability of industrial dispute on the ground that the employee is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Ac( what the Labour CourU lndustrial Tribunal is required to consider is whether the person is employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, technical or clerical work in an industry. Once the test of employment for hire or reward for doing the specified type of work is satisfied, the employee would fall within the definition of "workman".

15. The judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh (supra) would make it clear that any person who is hired to wo'rk in an industry in any manual, unskilled or skilled, operational, technical or clerical, would come under the definition of a workman so long as the employment is in an industry within the meaning of the lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. The lrrigation Department having been held as an lndustry, and thereby amenable to the provisions of lndustrial Disputes Act, ought to have put the employees of the 1't respondent-Employees Union on notice before changing their employer, and thereby it is a violation of Section 9A of the Act.

15. Further, the Labour Court while discussing the aspect of employer- employee relationship, in paragraph 4 of the Award, held that the APSIDC and the Presidents were only agents for the Government, therefore, merely because the workers were not paid wages by the Govt., it cannot be said that the Govt., was not the employer for the workers working under 18 Lift lrrigation Schemes, and if really, there was no such 13 wp 1O92O_2m2 NBK, T relationship between the workers and the Government, there was no need for the Government to issue the said GOs., and memos.

77. Having considered the respective contentions, and perusing the material on record, and also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, this Court is ofthe view that the Labour Court passed the Award after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, in proper perspective, and there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned Award.

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR (t\,t- v sEciloN oFFtcER - State of Telangana [OUT]

1. Two CCs to Gp FOR TRRtcATtON & COMM AREA DEV, High Court for the 2 Two CCs to Gp FoR LABouR, High court for the state of rerangana. [oUT] 3. The Labour Court-il1, Hyderabad.(WITH RECORDS) 4. One CC to SRt V.MALLIK, Advocate. tOpUCI 5. One CC to SRt HARTNATH REDDY SOMA, Advocate. [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies. BSK BS l ilE Sl.l/ c ( o 2 4 Fi3 7i:i5 t D F5n 1' 6 ('( ,.r c a' HIGH COURT DATED:3010112025 ORDER WP.No.10920 ot 2002 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS