The petitioner, a contract labour member, sought protection against potential termination due to lack of a specific diploma. The High Court held the petition premature as no adverse action had been taken and no privity of contract existed, closing the writ.
The writ petition was closed with no order as to costs. No relief was granted.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.23482 of 2005
Between:
V.Srinivasulu. .. PETITIONER
And
Chief Managing Director AP TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad,
Hyderabad and others. .. RESPONDENTS
ORDER:
The petitioner is working as a contract labour under a labour contractor, engaged by the respondents. He states that he is a Diploma Holder in Electronics and Communication Engineering. The petitioner apprehends that the respondents may insist on dispensing with his services on the ground that he does not hold the Diploma in Electrical Engineering.
On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that it does not exist any privity of contract or relationship of an employer and employee between them and the petitioner. It is also stated that the work has been entrusted to the Labour Contractor and the entire matter is governed by the terms and conditions
thereof.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner expresses an apprehension that his services may be dispensed with as a contract labour on account of insistence of possessing the qualification of a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. Nothing is indicated in the pleadings, to buttress this contention. Even if it is assumed that the respondents insisted that only those candidates, who possessed the Diploma in Electrical Engineering alone be engaged, it can be on the basis of a term, included in the contract awarded to the labour contractor. The petitioner can be said to have had any grievance, if any action is taken against him by the said contractor, who engaged him.
For all practical purposes, the writ petition is premature and no relief can be granted at this stage.
The writ petition is accordingly closed. No order as to costs.
14-12-2005
Prv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, a contract labour apprehending dispensing of services due to lack of specific engineering diploma, has a maintainable petition.
Whether the writ petition is premature given no injury has crystallized yet.
V.Srinivasulu
Chief Managing Director AP TRANSCO
L. NARASIMHA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
