Dismissed

M. Venkateshwarlu v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC19 Apr 2023WP/21656/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal to grant weightage marks to contract labourers at Transformer Repairing Centers as equal to those given to sub-station operators. The court held that policy formulation lies with the employer.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions to be closed.

M. Venkateshwarlu Vs The Chairman and Managing… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THESTATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{NINETEENTHDAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N NO:^{21656 0F 2012}

¶7

Between:

¶8

-^- i. l . Venkateshwarlu, S/o M. Eshwaraiah, Aged 37 years'

¶9

G. Narsimulu,^{S/o G-P. Venkatanna, aged 33 years,} S. f. R.nok^{Kumar, s/o K. Hanumanthu, aged 21 years,} +. Cninna Hanumanthu,^{s/o Gokaranna, aged 25 years,}

¶10

K. Murali^{Krishna, s/o Sivalingappa, aged 28 years,}

¶11

G. Anand, s/o^{Ramanna, aged 26 years'}

¶12

K. Shankar, s/o^{K. Ramulu' Aged 34 years,}

¶13

Md. Khaleel,^{s/o Md. Khaja' Aged34 years'}

¶14

Md. Saleem,^{s/o Md. Haneef,Aged21 years'} 10.Md. lmran; s/o^{Md. Khaja, aged23 years} 1 1 . Shaik Moulali,^{s/o Shaik Janis Aged 29 years,} 12.8. Ramesh, s/o^{B. Bala Swamy,aged 26 years'} 13.Md. Jaffer,^{s/o Md.Nadeem, aged 31-years,} 't4.8. Krishnaiah, sio B. Nagaish, Aged 21^years, ^ '15.V. Raian Goud, s/o ShanlemisAi Goud,^{aged 29 years,}

¶15

io.i. r.irlr.inni,^{iro rrisnnaiah,aged 25 years,}

¶16

All are Contract^{Labourers, TransformerRepairingCenter, O/o TheDivisional} ils;;; iRi'^{AP-cFb6[, r',rir,]6|jonig"ibivisidn, Mahabubnasar District'}

¶17

..,PETITIONERS

¶18

AND

¶19

The Chairman^{& Managing Director,A'P'C'P'D'C'L''MintCompound'} Hyderabad.

¶20

The Superintending^{Engineer,APCPDCL, Mahabubnagar' Mahabubnagar} District.

¶21

The Divisional^{Engineer (TRE)APCPDCL, Mahabubnagar Division'} Mahabubnagar District.

¶22

...RES'ONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article^{226 ot lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'tl;eHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue an^{appropriatewrit order or declaring the actionof the} respondents in not^{giving weightage marks to the petitionerswho are workingat} TransformerRepairing-CentersContractLabourersonparwiththeSubStation

¶24

Contract Shift Ogrer rt()rs as illegal, arbitrary,^{discrinlin;rt,)y and againstthe} principles of natura justice and consequently direct tho r:s;porrdents lo give same weightage rra ks to the^petitioners contract^{Iabc urerrs\ry 10 lTe working at} Transformer Repetiri rg Centers Contract Labourers^z s^\vill; ;ivern to the^Sub Station Contract Shif C)perators

¶25

l.A. NO: 1 oF 2012(V PMP NO: 27753 OF 20121

¶26

Petition uncer Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in th€ r;trc.lm:;tances stated} in the affidavit file,i ir support of the^{petitron,the HighCcurt nraybe pleasedto} direct the responden s to consider the^{representationof the} I)etitioners^{dl 1-6-12} to give same weigh age marks to^{the petitionerscoitractli, bottrerswho are} working at Transforn:r Repairing Centers Contact^{Labourers a:; was given to the} Station Contract Shit Operators,^{pendingdisposal of the mairr vrrit petition}

¶27

Counsel for the Petil oners: SRI D.L.^PANDU

¶28

counsel forthe.Resl ondents: sRl R.^{vlNoDREDDY(SC FOl. rS TRANSCO)} The Court made the ollowing: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶30

UIRIT PETITION No.21656 of 2OL2

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled by the petitioners seeking the following relief

¶33

"...to i.ssue an appropiate tuit order or declaring the action of the respondents in not giuing weightage marks to tlle petitioners u.tho are working at Transformer Repairing Centers Controct Lobourers on par with tlrc Sub Station Contract Shifi^()perators as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the pinciples of natural justice and consequentlg dlrect the respondents lo giue same ueightage marks to the petitioners contract labourers utho are tuorklng at Transformer Repairing Centers Contract Labourers as u)as giuen to the Sub Stati<tn Contracl Shtft Operators and to pass such other order or orders-.. "

¶34

. It is the case of the petitioners that they were working as Contract Labourers under various Contractors and Transformers Repairing Centers. The petitioners have applied for the posts of Contract Junior Lineman on regular basis in respondent No.2 Operation Circle, Mahabubnagar. Thereafter. the petitioners have made a representation to the respondent No.l on 01.06.2012 requesting him to direct the authority concerned to give weightage marks equally to both working at Sub Station Contract Shift Operators and Transformer Repairing Centers Contract Labonrs under the respondent No.3.

¶35

'-'sEis \ \ ,\ ''r#

¶36

But, the re ;pondent^{No lhas not takenan"r zL(l:ior so far} Hence, thr: [:esent^u'rit Petltlon

¶37

The r, slrondents have filed a^{counter alfidar'itinter alru} stating th at the petitioners arc neither^{rcgularerLployees nor} contract^rl rr cloyees, but thel' are^{wor-kingunder third partl'} contract, r1n I -herefore. lhey cannot be^{equated v'itfr th: regular} employeesi o rhe respolldent Company and^{p,r2"361 t 1is Courtto} dismiss the rresent writ petition.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the 1)etjtionr,^{rs, learned} Standing 3c rnscl for the rcspondents^{and perused t-re -ecord.}

¶39

The d :cision on the question of giving^{tvciql-.ta5;eto the} services of t )e petitioners under third^party colltrl(lt,^{has to be} taken by t re respondent Company, and this^{Cour[, under} Article 221,6 of the Constitution of India, cannol. djrect^the authorities o formulate the policy. Moreovcr,^{th e ret;pondent} I Company t as not violated any^r ule or law errabling the petitioner t approach this Court under Articlr 22tr of the Constitutior of India for^{safeguarding his intr:rest}

¶40

Havln lregard to the above, this^{Courtdot-'s':not hnd any} illegality cr inlirmity in the impugned^{order wirr.-anting any}

.//

interference by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶45

Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions, it any, pending in this writ

¶47

petition, shall stand closed.

¶48

orr,rriR'ik'4Y3i[fF //TRUE COPY// To, SECTIO OFFICER 1 32, ffi ff Lfi^{Fi R ? itlH.'t6sy:iss tB'-1?} TRANSCO) toPUCI BN SB ./ c,

HIGH COURT

DATED:19104 2023

iw
\5
)I
.=s
Iil stb

ORDER

WP.No.21656 of 2012

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C(^ISTS

¶56

,
3( 5 2\ -€
(t^r

M. Venkateshwarlu v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Venkateshwarlu v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hanamkonda, Warangal District Vs the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Warangal and Another

Smt.M.Sujata and Another Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another

Amara Srinivasa Rao Vs Kodela Chinna Rajaiah

Smt.Ch.Shobha Rani Vs Mettu Sarala

K. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, Vs Chindam Rajamallu

T.Malla Reddy Vs The Government of Ap.