APHC010450892023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 141 of 2023 Bench Sr.No:-14 [3584] Keethineedi Akhil Siri Guru Teja ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: ARUN SHOWRI G Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR LABOUR, GP FOR REVENUE, SATISH BABU RAMINENI SC For APBCL and APSBCL for Rayalaseema region,NLR,PRK, GP FOR SERVICES I CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 1st July 2026 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) By way of present public interest litigation, petitioner assails the action of respondents, in particular, 3rd respondent Corporation in violating the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (herein after, for short ‘the Act’) insofar as employing the workmen in the retail liquor outlets maintained by it by either exploiting them to work beyond the mandatory working hours, non-granting of paid leave and bonus as provided under G.O.Ms.No.357, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dated 16.08.2019, besides non-payment 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.141 of 2023 of other statutory benefits as envisaged under aforesaid Act and the Rules made thereunder and various other Government Orders to be illegal, arbitrary and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. 2. Heard Sri G.Arun Showri, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Satish Babu Ramineni, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of 3rd respondent. 3. (a) It is stated that the 1st respondent Government, in furtherance to its excise policy, has decided to grant exclusive privilege of selling IMFL and FL to general public through 3rd respondent Corporation, accordingly, issued G.O.Ms.No.357, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dated 16.08.2019. By the said G.O., operational guidelines came to be notified for running retail outlets, which also included the staffing pattern as well. Around 11,348 contract employees came to be engaged in the entire state. (b) In terms of aforesaid Government order, all the employees were to be deployed on contract/outsourcing basis, added that, the remuneration for supervisor and salesman came to be determined as ₹21,500/- and ₹18,500/- plus PF & ESI 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.141 of 2023 respectively, which was in terms of G.O.Ms.No.151, Finance (HR-I)-Pig. & Policy) Department, dated 08.08.2016. That apart, the order also provided for payment of remuneration towards watch and Ward as specified in G.O.Ms.No.43, Labour Employment, Training and Factories (LAB.II) Department, dated 28.05.2010. (c) It is stated that the retail outlets were functioning from 11.00 a.m. to 09.00 p.m. and the staff working over there had to close the accounts and by the time they leave, end up with another one more hour, in effect, they have been working for almost 11 hours in a day, as against 9 hours in terms of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, which merely provided for 9 hours of work in a day. Besides, it is also stated that for the work beyond 9 hours, the employees were never paid or compensated for overtime. It is also stated that only 3 holidays were being granted as against 8 in a calendar year, in contravention to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The contract employees were not being extended the statutory payments such as PF, Leave Encashment etc. (d) Alleging above shortcomings or violations, the present writ petition is preferred in the interest of public interest. 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.141 of 2023 4. 3rd respondent Corporation has filed detailed counter opposing the writ petition. 5. (a) It is stated that the excise policy which was put in place by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.357, dated 16.08.2019, which inter alia envisaged 3rd respondent to operate all the retail outlets within the State of Andhra Pradesh, came to be revised under Excise policy for 2024-26. The new Excise policy issued under G.O.Ms.No.211, Revenue (Excise) Department, dated 30.09.2024, envisaged grant of privilege of selling IMFL and FL by shop through private persons or entities and the earlier arrangement of sales conducted through 3rd respondent Corporation came to be discontinued with effect from 16.10.2024. Eventually, all the outsourcing agencies which engaged contractual employees in the retail outlets operated by 3rd respondent also came to be determined and they ceased to work anymore with 3rd respondent. (b) It is further stated that all the contract employees, during the subsistence of earlier Excise policy, were paid the remuneration strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.357, dated 16.08.2019. It is also asserted that the contract employees were paid aforesaid remuneration along with provident fund and ESI in 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.141 of 2023 terms of G.O.Ms.No.151, dated 08.08.2016, besides remuneration towards watch and Ward as per G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 08.05.2010. (c) It is further stated that all the concerned depot managers were strictly instructed to ensure the duties of sales personnel shall be assigned only for 8 hours in a day with a necessary break and in case any of them work overtime, they should be compensated with overtime charges, accordingly, the outsourcing agencies were paid from time to time. None of the employees had ever raised any issue or claim alleging any violation on account of either overtime working or not being compensated for the same. It is therefore urged that, in view of change in the Excise policy and that the contract employees during the earlier Excise period had been appropriately compensated and their service conditions were strictly enforced in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and various other Governmental orders, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We heard both learned counsels and also gone through the material available on record. Though, by present public interest, petitioner has sought to raise various issues concerning the service conditions of contract employees engaged with 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.141 of 2023 3rd respondent corporation at relevant point of time, except for making general statement that the contract employees were made to work in deviation to the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, nothing has been specifically pleaded qua individual contract employee. None of the contract employees are before this court. 7. Be that as it may, it is also required to be noticed that the Excise policy in vogue for the period 2019 - 2024, came to be revised and that under new Excise policy, the privilege of selling IMFL and FL by shops has been granted in favour of private persons/entities by divesting from 3rd respondent corporation. The said policy had come into force with effect from 16.10.2024 and all the contract employees who were engaged through outsourcing agencies also came to be disengaged with effect from the said date. 8. The counter of 3rd respondent emphatically states that the contract employees who had worked during aforesaid period have been paid and compensated strictly in accordance with the operative guidelines envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.357, dated 16.08.2019. In that view of the matter, in view of change in the Excise policy and that even the contract employees who were 7 HCJ & CGR, J W.P.(PIL) No.141 of 2023 otherwise working earlier have been disengaged, we see no reason to undertake any further roving enquiry on the alleged violations. However, in case if any individual contract employees are aggrieved or have any claim concerning the issues highlighted in the present case, they are at liberty to work out their legal remedies in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations, the present petition stands disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss