Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Valluru Vamsi Krishna vs M/O Labour & Employment on 27 September, 2023
1
OA.No.398/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/00398/2018
HYDERABAD, this the 27th day of September, 2023.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Valluru Vamsi Krishna, aged about 26 years
S/o. V.Sreenivasa Rao
Multi Tasking Staff (On outsourcing basis)
Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Dispensary
Labour Welfare Organization
Government of India
Imamnagar, Desaipet Gram Panchayat
Vetapalem - (P.O.), Prakasam District - 523187 (A.P).
2. Salagala Sobha Rani, aged about 30 years
D/o Chepuri Babu Rao
Multi Tasking Staff (On outsourcing basis)
Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Dispensary
Labour Welfare Organization
Government of India
Imamnagar, Desaipet Gram Panchayat
Vetapalem - (P.O.), Prakasam District - 523187 (A.P).
3. Boddu Kamakshamma, aged about 40 years
D/o Penamala Seenaiah
Multi Tasking Staff (On outsourcing basis)
Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Dispensary
Labour Welfare Organization
Government of India
Hyderabad - 500020 (T.S.).
4. E.V.Naga Lakshmi, aged about 35 years
D/o Gorentlamma
Multi Tasking Staff (On outsourcing basis)
Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Dispensary
Labour Welfare Organization, Government of India
B/B.91, B.Camp, Opp. B.Camp Post Office
Kurnool - 518001 (A.P.).
5. Madiga Raju, aged about 23 years
S/o Pedda Bajari
Multi Tasking Staff (On outsourcing basis)
Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Dispensary
2
OA.No.398/2018
Labour Welfare Organisation, Government of India
B/B.91, B.Camp, Opp. B.Camp Post Office
Kurnool - 518001 (A.P.).
6. Nerusupalli Aswini aged about 26 years
D/o. Bukka Sankar Reddy
Multi Tasking Staff (On outsourcing basis)
Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Dispensary
Labour Welfare Organization, Government of India
Near Ram Mandir, Reddy's Colony
Raichoti - 516269, YSR Kadapa District (A.P.).
7. Kondreddy Lakshmi Devi aged about 45 years
W/o. K Gangi Reddy
Multi Tasking Staff (On outsourcing basis)
Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Dispensary
Labour Welfare Organization, Government of India
Near Ram Mandir, Reddy's Colony
Raichoti - 516269, YSR Kadapa District (A.P.). ...Applicant s
(By Advocate Sri T.Koteswara Rao)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary to the Govt. of India
Ministry of Labour & Employment
Sharam Sakthi Bhawan
Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Welfare & Cess Commissioner
Labour Welfare Organisation
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
Kendriya Sadan, Koti, Hyderabad - 500095.
3. V. Rajesh, aged about 32 years
S/o. V. Kanaka Raju
Manpower Supplier, H. No.3-67/3/33
Nethaji Nagar, Gulmohar Park Colony
Serlingampally, Hyderabad - 500 019.
4. L.Ramana Murthy, Head Clerk cum Accountant
Through the Welfare Commissioner
L.W.O. Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment
Kendriya Sadan, Koti, Hyderabad - 500095. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Smt. M.Swarna, Addl.CGSC)
3
OA.No.398/2018
ORAL ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicants have filed the OA praying for a direction to the respondents to continue with their employment until they are replaced by the regular staff recruited in their place and also to declare that there is an employee-employer relationship between the applicants and the 2nd respondent.
2. The respondents in their reply stated that they do not have any authority or power to insist the contractor to engage the applicants in the outsourcing employment as preferential basis and furthermore the applicants are not Govt.
employees and the matter will not come under the purview of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
3. When the matter was called for hearing, none present for the applicants. On the earlier occasion also none appeared for the applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is squarely covered by the order of this Tribunal passed in OA.No.335/2018 vide dated 06.12.2018 and hence, this OA can also be decided on the same lines. The operative portion of the order dated 06.12.2018 passed in OA.No.335/2018 is reproduced as below:
"6. The issue essentially relates to as to whether an outsourced employee who is engaged by a labour contractor can approach this Tribunal for relief. Records placed before the Tribunal do confirm that the respondents have placed a supply order on a labour contractor to supply labour vide their letter dated 18.4.2012. The applicant is one among the labourers, supplied by the labour contractor, who is working for the respondent organisation. Clause 5 of the supply order states that as and when the minimum wages are revised by the State Government of 4 OA.No.398/2018 Telangana, the labour contractor should pay the same under a mutual agreement for reimbursement by the respondent organisation. The issue is between the labour contractor and the applicant and the respondents have no role to play in this regard, much less through the medium of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In case the contractor does not supply the labour the respondents can only cancel the contract but cannot interfere in regard to the affairs between the contractor and his employees. Only on proper proof of payment of wages being submitted to the Respondent Organisation that the respondents would release the payments as per clause 9 of the supply order. There is no provision in the supply order for the respondents to interfere if there is any dispute between the labour contractor and his employee. The applicant is not covered by Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act as he neither holds a civil post nor he is a member of the civil service as defined in the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in P.Lal v U.O.I reported in AIR 2003 SC 1499 as under:
"Section 14 vests in the Tribunal the jurisdiction, power and authority earlier exercised by Courts in respect of service matters."
Again, the service matters shall pertain to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union and the applicant being not coming under any of the above category, the present issue is not a service matter in terms of the Administrative Tribunals Act. It is a labour dispute between the labour contractor and his employee and hence it has to be contested in a labour forum. Honourable Supreme Court has consistently held in a cornucopia of decisions including Union of India v Gobinda Prasad Mula, AIR 2013 SC 1074 that "Employee working in Unit run Canteen of Air Force does not hold a civil post. He is not a civil servant. Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction over him."
In the present case too, the applicant does not hold any civil post and thus his case does not come within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal. Moreover, the engagement of outsourced labour is a policy issue of the respondent organisation and the Tribunal cannot interject in policy issue, as per the observation of the Honourable Supreme Court in P.U Joshi v Accountant General, Ahmedabad reported in AIR 2003 SC 2156. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted the judgment of the Honourable High Court of judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P 40217 of 2018 wherein the prayer was exclusively in regard to recruitment of the 5 OA.No.398/2018 petitioners in the writ petition filed. That case in view of the specific prayer relating to the claim for employment under the Government Service for which Recruitment Regulations were sought to be framed and without impleading the contractor, is disparate and thus distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In the present case, the contractor has been impleaded and further the subject matter is implementation of a term of the bilateral contract between the respondent and the contractor, a factor which does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The forum for the claim of the applicant lies elsewhere.
7. Thus based on facts, provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act and the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court the present case does not come within the ambit of the Administrative Tribunal to adjudicate.
8. Hence there is absolutely no scope to intervene and therefore the OA is dismissed. Consequently, MA 381/2018 stands dismissed. No order to costs."
5. In view of the above, since the OA is covered by the above order dated 06.12.2018 passed in OA.No.335/2018 by this Tribunal, this OA is also dismissed on the same lines. No order as to costs.
(SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER /ps/