A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS v. G. SRINIVASA REDDY AND ORS

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 494

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, R.V. RAVEENDRAN

Case summary

A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS v. G. SRINIVASA REDDY AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

A. P. S. R. T. C. AND ORS. v. ( G. SRINIVASA REDDY AND ORS. FEBRUARY 24, 2006 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R. Y. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.

] Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970-Section 10(/)- ' Circular containing guidelines issued by State Corporation for absorption of 1-persons employed on casual basis--Writ petitwn filed before High Court by respondents seeking direction/or regularisation ofservices on the basis ofthe Circular---High Court giving directions to th~ Corporation to consider the case of the respondents in terms of the Circular-Corporation passed an order rejecting the absorption ofthe respondents on the ground that they are contract labour and that there is no employee-employer relationship-Writ petition filed by respondents before High Court challenging the order-High Court allowing the Writ Petition holding that the work ofthe respondents was perennial in nature and hence there was direct employee-employer Irelationship-Correctness of-Held, the High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its own decision and direct absorption ofr.

~spondents by assuming that the contract labour system was only a camouflage and that there was a direct employer-employee relationship-On facts, tile respondents are not entitled to the reliefofabsorptionlregularizatwn on the basis ofthe Circular as it specifically excluded contract labour. Appellant-Corporation issued a Circular containing guidelines for absorption of persons employed on casual basis/consolidated pay/piecemeal rate/work charged establishment. The guiddines provided, inter alia, that ~ . it is not applicable to contract labour. Res1mndents, who were employed as scavengers by the appellant, filed a Writ Petition before High Court seeking direction for regularisation of th1:ir seryices. The High Court, without examining the claim on merits, din! cted the appellant to consider their cases in term of the Circular and pass order. The appellant, by a letter, instructed its concerned officer to verify the claims of the respondents and send necessary information.

Since no further action was ... I' taken, the respondents filed a Writ Petition before High Court (second . - A. P. S. R. T. C. v. G. SRINIVASA REDDY 495 round) for declaration that the appellant's failure to take action was illegal "( and praying for a direction to the appellant to absorb them into its service. The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the Corporation to consider the claim for absorption. A Selection Committee of the appellant, after interviewing the third respondent, found him to be a contract labour. The appellant passed an order holding that the third respondent was not entitled to claim absorption under the Circular. The respondents filed a Writ Petition • before High Court (third round) for quashing the order of the appellant --i and seeking a direction to treat them as ex-casual employees and absorb them under the Circular.

The High Court quashed the order of the appellant directing the appellant to pass a fresh order on the representation of the respondents. The High Court held that the appellant could not reject the claim of the respondents being contract labour as such ground was not taken by the appellant in earlier rounds of litigation. The Writ Appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court holding that the work of the respondents was perennial in nature and not seasonal and hence there was direct master - servant relationship between - -\ • the appellant and the respondents. f Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1. There was no notification under section 10(1) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting contract labour. There was also neither a contention nor a finding that the contract with the contractor was sham and nominal and the contract labour working in the establishment were, in fact, employees of the principal employer himself.

The High Court could not have directed absorption of respondents who were held to be contract labour by assuming that the contract labour , .. -- . 14. Therefore, while disposing of writ petitions with a direction to l 'consider', there is a need for the High Court to make the direction clear and specific. The order should clearly indicate whether the High Court is recording any finding about the entitlement of the petitioner to the relief or whether the petition is being disposed of without examining the claim on merits. The court should also normally fix a time-frame for consideration and decision. If no time-frame is fixed and if the authority does not decide the matter, the direction of the court becomes virtually infructuom as the aggrieved petitioner will have to come again to court with a fresh writ p·~tition or file an application for fixing time for deciding the matter. 15.

In this case, the respondents approached the High Court seeking a direction for regularization/absorption in the year 1991. That petition (WP .... No. 14353/1991) was disposed of, aμparently, at the admission stage by order dated 5. 11. 1991, with a direction to 'rnnsidcr' the representations of Respondents without examining the question whether the petitioners in the writ petition were entitled to the reliefofregularization/absorption and without fixing any time frame for deciding the matti~r. Though the Divisional Manager, • Adilabad, by letter dated 14. 7. 1992 sought information and verification of claims by the concerned depots, with the intention of giving effect to the order dated 5. 11. 1991, no further action was tak·~n. This led to filing of the second petition (W. P. No. 30220/1997) wh·~rein the respondents herein sought a direction to the concerned authority to take a jecision on the question of ).. absorption.

The second petition was also disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage by order dated 17. 3. 1998, without examining the claim of respondents ' on merits. The said order dated 17. 3. :. 998 p·'. oceeded on an erroneous assumption that the letter dated 14. 7. 1992 (by which the Divisional Manager, Adilabad, sought information from the concerned Depot Managers abou' the respondents herein) was the Circular containing the guidelines for absorption, and disposed of Writ Petition No. 30220/1997 by directing the authority ·Concerned to consider the cases of the n:spondents herein for absorption in terms of the guidelines contained in the ktter dated 14. 7. 1992 and decide the matter within three months. 16. We find that at that stage, the authority considered the case of the third respondent and passed a reasoned . irder dated 21. 4.

1999 rejecting the c:laim on the ground that the third respondent was not a direct employee, but was a contract labour, and was not therefore entitled to absorption under the Circular dated 1. 9. 1988. This led to the third round of litigation in W. P. No. 17678/1999 wherein the prayer was for quashing the said order or rejection .. dated 21. 4. 1999 and for direction to absorb then into service in terms of the ,. Circular dated 1. 9. 1988 Again, the High Court at the admission stage, disposed of the matter on an erroneous conclusion that the order dated 21. 4. 1999 was contrary to the decision in the second round (Order dated 17. 3. 1998 in W. P. No. 30220/1997) and directed the Corporation to pass fresh orders on the representations made by the respondents. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the assumption, without basis, that the order dated 17. 3. 1998 in the earlier petition (WP No. 30220/1997) had held that Respondents were entitled to the benefit of the Circular dated 1. 9.

1988, when in fact there was no such finding or direction. Therefore, the direction of the learned Single Judge, as confirmed by the Division Bench, to consider the cases of respondents under the Circular dated 1. 9. 1988 cannot be sustained. It is unfortunate that in this process, the Respondents have been in courts for nearly 15 years. 17. For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 30. 9. 1999 passed by the Division Bench of the A. P. High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1422 of 1999 and dismiss Writ Petition No. 17678/1999 filed by the respondents. Liberty is, however, reserved to the respondents to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Court for relief, if any, in accordance with law. Parties to bear their respective costs. B. S. Appeal allowed. ,). . -A. i