APHC010579802011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 23196/2011 Between: The Management Of Sri Sivani Enterprises,amadalavalasa. ...PETITIONER AND The Presiding Off Indus Trib Cum Labour Court Vskptnm 4 and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ALAPATI ROHINI SRINIVAS MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the award passed in I.D.No.106 of 2008 dated 07.07.2008, whereby the 2nd respondent was directed to be reinstated into service. 2. The 2nd respondent was working as a driver, transporting HP Gas cylinders from the stock point to the godown of the petitioner. The petitioner was a HP Gas dealer in the District of Srikakulam. While conducting their business, the petitioners engaged the services of a third party for the transportation of the gas cylinders. HN, J W.P.No.23196_2011 2 The respondent Nos.3 and 4 provided lorry services by engaging drivers for transporting the gas cylinders. 3. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 removed the 2nd respondent from service. Aggrieved by the termination, the 2nd respondent approached the Labour Court and filed I.D.No.106 of 2005. The petitioner was also made a party respondent before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that the Labour Court, without considering the same, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, together with back wages and continuity of service. 5. There is no representation for the respondents today and no counter-affidavit has been filed. 6. Even as per the award, it is recorded that the 1st respondent therein, i.e., the 3rd respondent herein, had terminated the 2nd respondent from service. The documents filed by the petitioner therein are the correspondence exchanged between the workmen and the employer of the workmen. The petitioner is not a privy to HN, J W.P.No.23196_2011 3 the said correspondence. In that scenario, the Labour Court ought not to have directed the petitioner herein, along with respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, to reinstate the 2nd respondent into service. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the paymaster of the 2nd respondent, nor is the 2nd respondent a worker under the command and control of the petitioner. The Labour Court has lost sight of this fact and passed the award and issued directions to all the respondents therein to reinstate the 2nd respondent. 8. This Court, considering the nature of business of the petitioner and also taking into account, the petitioner had never engaged the services of the 2nd respondent, modifies the operation of the award to the extent that it applies to the petitioner only. 9. This Court is of the considered opinion that the award deserves to be modified to the extent of directing the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 herein to be responsible for compliance with the award. 10. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. HN, J W.P.No.23196_2011 4 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 22.01.2025 NKA HN, J W.P.No.23196_2011 5 43 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.23196 of 2011 Date: 22.01.2025 NKA