Telangana High Court
The Management Of Metropolitan Water ... vs The Union Of Water Supply And Sewerage ... on 27 January, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.15 and 22 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
01. Since the issue involved in both the writ appeals is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.
02. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.A.No.15 of 2022 are hereunder discussed.
03. W.A.No.15 of 2022 is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16733 of 2021, dated 30.01.2020.
04. Appellant is the Management of Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board. It has been contended by the appellant that the 1st respondent has raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer in respect of two employees viz., A.Preman Pillai and M.Chellaiah for regularization of their services as the said workers were continuously working with the appellant since 1991. The Conciliation Officer had initiated conciliation proceedings and when no settlement was entered into between the 1st respondent and the appellant, the Conciliation Officer had submitted a failure report to the appropriate Government and the appropriate Government has referred the dispute to the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, under Section 10 (1) (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 2 1947, for adjudication of the dispute vide G.O.Rt.No.2700, dated 30.09.1997 and the following reference was made before the Labour Court:
"Whether the Management of Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board is justified in denying the regularization of services of Sri M.Chellaiah and A.Preman Pillai ignoring the assurance given by the Chief General Manager (Projects) at the time of drafting into the Board. If not, to what relief the said workers are entitled to."
The said reference was numbered as I.D.No.88 of 1997 and the appellant had contended that the Labour Court had erroneously passed the Award in favour of the 1st respondent on 20.10.2000 in I.D.No.88 of 1997. It has been further contended by the appellant that the workmen in question were never employed by the appellant and they were employed by M/s.Best & Crompton Engineering Limited and there is no master and servant relationship between the workmen and the appellant. Challenging the said Award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant has filed W.P.No.16733 of 2001. The Labour Court had granted consequential relief to the workmen in M.P.No.7 of 2003 dated 13.04.2004. Challenging the orders in M.P.No.7 of 2003, W.P.No.16343 of 2004 was filed before this Court and this Court dismissed the said writ petitions vide common order dated 30.01.2020.
3
05. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the workmen in question were never employed by the appellant and there is no master and servant relationship between the appellant and the workmen and the said workmen were employed by M/s.Best & Crompton Engineering Limited and that the Labour Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the regularization of services of the workmen in question. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in these writ appeals by setting aside the order passed in I.D.No.88 of 1997, dated 20.10.2000 and also order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.16733 of 2001 and 16343 of 2004.
06. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that the workmen in question were engaged continuously from 1991 by the appellant and it is true that the workmen were initially engaged by M/s.Best & Crompton Engineering Limited during 1981 and 1980 respectively, but from 31.03.1991, the workmen in question were continuously working with the appellant and the workmen have rendered more than five years of service at the time of raising the Industrial Dispute. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant has regularized several other similarly situated persons except these two workmen, who were denied regularization and that the 1st respondent has raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and 4 when the conciliation talks have failed, failure report was submitted to the Government and the Government has referred the dispute to the Labour Court and the Labour Court after examining the entire case and based upon the evidence which was led before it, has rightly directed the appellant to regularize the services of the workmen and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant. Hence, there are no merits in these writ appeals and they are liable to be dismissed.
07. Having considered the rival submissions made by the leaned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court has given a specific finding that the workmen in question were working with the appellant from 1991 onwards and hence, they are entitled for regularization of their services on par with the similarly situated persons. Further, the Chief General Manager (Projects) has given assurance that the services of the two workmen would be regularized as they were engaged on daily wage basis from 01.04.1991 and the appellant was paying wages to the workmen and hence, the appellant cannot deny that the workmen are not directly employed by it. The Labour Court has also taken into account the fact that the officers of the appellant has recommended the case of the two workmen for regularization of their services. When the Officers of the appellant has recommended the cases of the two workmen in question for regularization of their 5 services, the appellant cannot contend that there is no master and servant relationship between appellant and the workmen. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly passed Award in favour of two workmen directing the appellant to regularize their services, and hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions.
Learned Single Judge, during the course of hearing, has specifically posed a question to the appellant as to what action has been initiated against the Chief General Manager for un-authorizedly appointing these two workmen. But the appellant could not place any evidence on record to show that what action has been taken against the Chief General Manager for employing these two workmen. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the common order passed by the learned Single Judge and Writ Appeal No.15 of 2022 is liable to be dismissed.
08. W.A.No.22 of 2022 is filed against the very same common order dated 30-01-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16343 of 2001, which was filed challenging the order passed by the Labour Court in M.P.No.7 of 2003 in I.D.No.88 of 1997, dated 13.4.2004 seeking wages. Since W.A.No.15 of 2022 is being dismissed, the consequential relief granted in favour of the workmen by the Labour Court-II in M.P.No.7 of 2003 in 6 I.D.No.88 of 1997, dated 13.04.2004, shall stand confirmed and accordingly, W.A.No.22 of 2022 also stands dismissed.
09. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed.
____________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ _____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 27.01.2022 rkk