Disposed
G. Sudhakar at Sudhakar Reddy v. The A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd.
Andhra Pradesh HCWP/25791/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT…
What the court decided
AI extract
SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.25791 of 2018
ORDER:
Petitioner claims to have been engaged as Skilled Contract Labour and continuing in the respondent – A.P.Transco since 2017; when he went to duty on 27.06.2018, the contractor, whose contract was valid upto 31.03.2019, instructed not to attend duty from 01.07.2017, and is intending to engage another person in his place. Hence the writ petition.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, inter alia , stating that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as AP Transco is not concerned with the engagement of manning staff by the contractors of the substations; petitioner is one among several workers appointed by the manning contractor of the respondent -Substation; respondent Nos.1 to 3 have nothing to do with engagement or disengagement from the work by the contractor, and directions were issued by the contractor to remove the petitioner; respondents neither engaged nor terminated the services of the petitioner herein; condition No.21 of the terms and conditions, annexed to the agreement, entered into with the contractor stipulates that the successful contractor shall be responsible for recruiting employees of his choice; in no circumstances, the employees under the contractor shall be considered as employees of AP Transco; and AP Transco has nothing to do with their employment.
2
Even, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that respondent Nos.1 to 3 entered into contract with respondent No.4 contractor, which is valid up to 31.03.2019, which is also over. As the petitioner is an employee of the Contractor and as the contract of the 4th respondent Contractor came to an end, admittedly, on 31.03.2019, no direction can be issued to the respondents 1 to 3.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, closed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J
Date:12.12.2019 usd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed by a skilled contract labourer claiming work engagement is maintainable against the principal employer and the contractor.
Petitioner
Respondents 1 to 3
Respondent No. 4
Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court