Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. In all these writ petitions, almost common question of fact and law arise for consideration and as such, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. According to the petitioners, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences (SVIMS) was established at Tirupathi in the year 1992 with the financial aid and assistance of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD). Since in the initial stages, there were no sanctioned posts in the Institute, the respondent-SVIMS appointed and engaged suitable persons on daily wage basis for various posts for the smooth running of SVIMS. Petitioners in W.P.No. 32836 of 1997 were engaged as drivers, petitioners in W.P.No. 32952 of 1997 as Laundry workers in the year 1994, petitioner in W.P.No. 33134 of 1997 as Supervisor, petitioners in W.P.No. 33814 of 1997 as Helpers under the control of the Civil Engineer at Tirupathi and petitioner in W.P.No. 33422 of 1997 in Class IV service as Pest Control Boy. They claim that they have been working since a long time and discharging their duties to the utmost satisfaction of their superiors without any adverse remark whatsoever. They are qualified and eligible to hold the said posts. They are holding responsibilities and functions on par with the regular employees in SVIMS. Though several similarly situated persons have been absorbed by the respondent-SVIMS and put them on time scale and some of them have also been declared as approved probationers, yet the SVIMS did not consider their cases for absorption on regular basis. It is also asserted that there is sufficient work in SVIMS and they are being continued in service on daily wage basis with artificial breaks. They have made several representations to the respondent-Institute to absorb them on regular basis and put them on time scale, but all their efforts went invain. Be that as it may, they came to know on 5-12-1997 that the respondent-Institute is taking steps to discontinue them from service and entrust the work to a third party to avoid their permanent absorption and putting them on regular pay scale. In fact, their services were terminated and attached to a named contractor after 5-12-1997 on various dates. The said action of the respondent-SVIMS is arbitrary, illegal and invalid.

6. The bone of contention of Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent SVIMS, is that in view of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994), the very appointment/engagement of the petitioners was illegal, as the Act prohibits engagement of daily wage workers. SVIMS had engaged contractors and instead of disengaging the petitioners, who have no right whatsoever, were accommodated and attached to the contractor. In fact, SVIMS requested the contractor to engage the same workers to avoid any inconvenience to the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners should have been thankful to the respondents, instead they made a tirade against SVIMS. Merely engaging a contractor and asking him to consider the case of the petitioners for being engaged by him does not amount to termination of services nor altering the service conditions of petitioners under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act. SVIMS had taken a pragmatic view of the fact that the very appointment of the petitioners in various capacities was contrary to Act 2 of 1994, as they were all engaged after the Act came into force. Once the very engagement of the petitioners by the respondents is illegal, it must be deemed that the initial engagement was void ab initio and the petitioners cannot complain either of termination of services or alteration of their service conditions contrary to the provisions of I.D. Act.

11. As seen from the above, the very object of Act 2 of 1994 is to regulate the appointments and prohibit irregular appointments under the State Government and other bodies established under a law made by the Legislature of the State. The daily wage employee is defined under Section 2(ii) of the Act. The appointment of daily wage employee is prohibited under Section 3 of Act 2 of 1994, apart form regularisation of temporary appointments without the prior permission of the competent authority. Thus, a cumulative reading of Sections 2 and 3 of Act 2 of 1994 goes to show that the services in SVIMS is a 'public service' as SVIMS is a body established under a law made by the Legislature of the State and Act 2 of 1994, which prohibits daily wage appointments, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that Act 2 of 1994 is not applicable to SVIMS, since the services of SVIMS is not a public service and daily wage employment thus is not prohibited in SVIMS, is not acceptable. Act 2 of 1994 very much applies to SVIMS, which is an establishment brought out by a Legislature of the State. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General while bringing the attention of this Court to Section 7 of the Act, contended that a person who is a daily wage employee appointed on temporary basis under Section 3 of Act 2 of 1994 and is continuing as such at the commencement of the Act, shall not have or shall not be deemed ever to have a right to claim for regularization of services on any ground whatsoever and the services of such person shall be liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reasons. Further, while rebutting the arguments of Sri T. Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel for some of the writ petitioners, it was contended that the petitioners also do not fall within the third proviso to Section 7 of the Act, since SVIMS is not an industry and the employees are not workmen within the meaning of I.D. Act and Section 25F thereof has no application. He also emphasized that the services in the SVIMS is a public service and as such, it can never be treated as an industry. The argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that SVIMS is not an industry and as such, Section 7 has no application cannot be accepted. SVIMS is an institution established by the law made by Legislature and its aims and objectives are for establishment of a medical institute for the purpose of research and development apart from providing super-speciality health services to the needy public. A hospital or a medical institute is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of I.D. Act and the law is well settled that a hospital or medical institute is an industry within the meaning of the said Section. That apart, it is also submitted that SVIMS is a deemed University. At this stage, it may be necessary to notice the objects of SVIMS as stated in Section 4 of Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences University Act, 1955, which read as follows:

15. This decision is applicable with the same vigour to the facts of the case on hand, as, here it is an admitted case that only to avoid the rigour of Act 2 of 1994, respondents have committed another illegality, which cannot be approved.

16. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that to avoid the rigor of provisions of Act 2 of 1994, which would have resulted in termination of the services of the petitioners, only with a humanitarian approach, the petitioners were attached to a contractor and the wages were paid through him. This further strengthens the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners that SVIMS is an industry and the work entrusted to the petitioners is i.e. cooking, sweeping, cleaning etc., in the canteen or ancillary and perennial to the main activity of SVIMS and as such, there was no necessity for the respondent-SVIMS to terminate the services of the petitioners and make the petitioners to work under a contractor. It is nowhere stated that the services of the petitioners were not required or there was no sufficient work to engage these workmen. The only argument advanced on behalf of SVIMS was that to wriggle out of the rigors of provisions of Act 2 of 1994 the contractors were engaged and petitioners were attached to them. It is not in dispute that the petitioners working in various capacities were engaged and appointed by SVIMS initially and thereafter attached to the Contractor in view of the rigors of the provisions of Act 2 of 1994.