Two writ appeals filed by labourers employed by a contractor challenging an interim order directing the State to continue their services. The court held that without privity of contract and with the contractor's tenure ended, the impugned order could not be sustained.
Writ appeals allowed. Impugned interim orders quashed. No order as to costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY. TH^ TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS
./
WRIT APPEAL NO: 99 AND 164 OF 2020
WRIT APPEAL NO: 99 OF 2020
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred the against order dated 28.11.2019 in WP.No.18570 of 2019 on the file of the High Court. Between:
1. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Operation, APEPDCE, KLothapeta Sub-Division, East Godavari District. .........Petitipners/Respondents 2 to 4 <fe9 to 12
And
| 2 3. P Ananda Kumar S/o Srinu aged 26 years, R/o. 1 -1, Panchayati Street, Bheemakrosupalem, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. |
|---|
| 4. Y Venkata Ramana S/o Veerraju aged 30 years, R/o. 7-124, Ambethakar Nagar, Pasalapudi, Rayavaram Msindal, East Godavari District. |
| 5. T Ravi Babu S/o Satyanarayana aged 28 years, R/o. 34-10-11/1, Gandhi Nagar, Third Street, Mandapeta, East Godavari District. |
| 6. G Raju S/o Subba Rao aged 31 years, R/o. 7-139, Ambethakar Nagar, Pasalapudi, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. |
| 7.1 Durga Prasad Babu S/o Rambabu aged 27 years, R/o. 2-61/1, Vinayakuni Gudi Veedhi, Vadlamuru, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. |
| 8. G Eswara Rao S/o Narayanaswamy aged 29 years, R/o. 1-38, Tallapalem, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. |
| 9. V Srinivasa Rao S/o Trimurtulu aged 27 years, R/O. 1-208, Yarra Pothavaram, Pamarru Mandal, East Godavari District. |
| 10. P Eraveen Kumar S/o Subhaskara Rao aged 26 years, R/o. 2-42, S. C. Peta, Palathodu, East Godavari District. |
| 11. Reddy Srinivasu S/o Venkata Ramana aged 28 years, R/o. 3-29, Reddy Vaii Street, Narasapurapupeta, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. |
| 12. N Vinay Kumar S/o Bhasakra Rao aged 26 years, R/o. 1-55, Atreyapuram, Peravaram, East Godavari District. |
| 13. DW Satyanarayana S/o Venkata Rao aged 38 years, R/o. 34-2-51, Muchchuinilli, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. |
| 3 14. Karri Srinivasa Rao S/o Sriramaraju Aged 33 years, R/o. 1-296, Cherakala Street, Ravulapalem, East Godavari District. |
|---|
| 15. RBhasakara Rao $/o L^cshmana Rao Aged 33 years, R/o. 17-65, Machavaram, Ambajipeta, East Godavari District. |
| 16. Pinipe Bobby S/o Prakasa Rao Aged 22 years, R/o. 2-55, Pothulavaripeta, Gunde Pndi, Allavaram, East Godavari District. |
| 17. T Raj Kumar $/o Nagaraju Aged 24 years, R/o. 1-175, Ambedhkar Colony, Bhatnavilli, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. |
| 18. A Ravi Kumm* S/o Balayya Age4 26 years, R/o. 4-17, Aitha Bathula Vari Peta, Surasani Yanam, East Godavari District. |
| 19. Chinta Prasad S/o Prasad Rao Aged 36 years, R/o. 2-241, Near Church, Mogallamuiu, East Godavari District. |
| 20. V Ganesh S/o Bulokam Aged 27 years, R/o. 1-17/1, Katai-ulanlca, K Mtmjavarain, Ambajipeta, P. Gannavai'ain Mandal, East Godavari District. |
| 21. K Nagendra Babu S/o Rama Rao Aged 29 years, R/o. 12-26-7, Thota Vari Veedlii, Gopalapuram, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District. |
| Respondents/Petitioner 22. P Lakshmi Venkata Satlieesh S/o Surya Sundaram, aged 24 years, R/o. 5-35, Dampalem, Narendrapuram, East Godavaj-i District. |
| 23 .The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amai-avathi, Guntur District. |
| 24.The Executive Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Ramachandrapuram Division, East Godavari Disd'ict. |
/
4
Mandapeta, East Godavari District.
.r-r Respondents/Respondent No.1,5 to 8&13
(R24 to R28 not necessary)
lA NO: 2 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of interim order dated 28.11.2019 in W.P. No. 18570 of 2019 consequentially stay of all further proceedings by allowing the instant writ appeal.
Counsel for the Appellants : SRI METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO
S'
, I 1 i
*** WRIT APPEAL NO: 164 OF 2020**
«,til M n., .: «-
c
Kancherlagudem, Gopalapuram, West Godavari District.
Valamarru, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District.
Respondents / Petitioners
/
eas
15.The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amai-avathi, Guntur District.
Mandapeta, East Godavari District
^^espondents/Respondent N0.I859.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
STs'i 120® g'in •"
lA NO: 2 OF 2020
the affiSi°fded"?r.®^,?n^®^L°?J Playing that in the circumstances stated in th! r f support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of interim order dated 28.11.2019 in W P No 18569 of 2niQ consequentially stay of all further proceedings by allowing the instant writ Appeal
Counsel for the Appellants : SRI METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
•5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
AND
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
W.A.Nos.99 and 164 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both the writ appeals are dealt with together as common questions of fact and law arises.
W.A.No.99 of 2020 is filed questioning the interim order dated 28.11.2019 in W.P.No. 18570 of 2019 whereas W.A.No.164 is filed questioning the order dated 28.11.2019 in W.P.No. 18569 of 2019. Both the writ petitions W.P.Nos.18570 and 18569 of 2019 are filed by the petitioners who are employed by the Contractor called Lakshmi Electricals. The said Lakshmi Electricals is the 13th respondent in W.P.No. 18570 of 2019 and is the gth respondent in W.P.No. 18569 of 2019. It is very clearly averred in the writ affidavit itself that they were appointed by Lakshmi Electric^s. Since the respondents were supposedly not allowing them to work on the basis of some Oral
2
instructions, the writ petitions are being filed. An identical interim order has been granted in both the eases. Questioning the same, the writ appeals are filed.
Sri Metta Chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants argued the matter at length and submits that even in the absence of an employer-employee relationship, the single Judge directed the continuation of the labour till further order?. He points out that as per the averments in the writ affidavit itself, the writ petitioners were engaged by the Contractor. The Contractor, according to him, is engaged for a specific period and the same also expired. Relying upon para 65 of the case of _Balwant Rai Soluja v. Air India Ltd._ he argues that the six fold test is not complied with at ^1 to establish privity of contract, therefore, both on legal and factual grounds, he submits that the writ appeals should be allowed. ’ . .
In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondents justifies the order passed. It is also submitted thatt eveneven ifif thethe .Contractor changes, the labour continued to be appointed
'(2014) 9 see 407
3
. < k
and that therefore, the impugned order is correct. He points out that on the basis of oral instructions, the labour duly appointed under the Contract particularly those who have the necessary qualifications as required under, the contract cannot be prevented from working. He states that this is arbitrary State action and that the interim orders are correct and writ appeals should be dismissed.
C0URT; This Court is of the Opinion that the impugned orders cahnot be sustained for more than one reason. Admittedly, the petitioners were employed through the contractor- Lakshmi Electricals, who is arrayed as the last respondent in both the writ petitions. They are necessarily the employees of the said Lakshmi Electricals. There is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the official respondents. A tender was floated and it is clearly mentioned in the writ affidavit itself that as per the tender Conditions, the contracting agency (9th respondent/13th respondent) engaged the petitioners.
In that view of the matter, the continuation of the appellants is incorrect. Without privity of contract, an outsourcing employee cannot maintain a writ against the
4
»
state or its instrumentality. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Batwant Rai Saluja (1 supra) squarely applies to the facts and circumstances and the tests specified are not fulfilled in this case. Apart from that, an indefinite order to retain the services of the petitioners till further orders also cannot be granted as admittedly another Contractor has been appointed for on 30.06.2020 by name Ms/.Abhinaya Enterprises, The letter of award of contract is filed in both the cases. Therefore, it is clear that the period of contract of Lakshmi Electricals is also ended. On this ground also, the interim order cannot be sustained.
Therefore, the writ appeals are allowed. No order as to
costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall
stand-dismissed.
sp/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. S-- SS !° Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, SC for APEDCL [OPUC1 2. One CC to Sri V.V. N Narayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two C.D. Copies Cnr
s
HIGH COURT
DATED:24/03/2023
COMMON JUDGMENT
WA.No.99 and 164 of 2020
^^ofanoJ^
5 2 3 AUG 2C23 m
ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether outsourcing employees engaged by a contractor can maintain a writ against the State or its instrumentality in the absence of privity of contract.
Whether the interim order directing the State to continue the employment of petitioners was valid given the contractor appointment under the tender conditions.
Whether the continuation of services under an indefinite order is tenable when the contractor's appointment has expired and a new contractor is appointed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balwant Rai Soluja v. Air India Ltd.Applied¶107
Balwant Rai Soluja v. Air India Ltd.
G Arjun
T Sriram
G Eswara Rao
Lakshmi Electricals
The State of Andhra Pradesh
APEPDCL
D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
V.SRINIVAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
