APHC010230512013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5163/2013 Between: 1. B. MURALI ACHARI, S/O. B. CHANDRASWHKARA ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. 20/114, R.K. NAGAR, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE HONBLE CHAIRMANCUMPRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 2. THE WORKS MANAGER REGIONAL WORKSHOP APSRTC, KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the order of the 1st respondent vide C.F.No.2671/2008 in ID No. Nil/2009 29.1.2010 as illegal, arbitrary and un constitutional and its amounts to violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and has been violative of settled judicial principles and precedence and direct it to register the industrial dispute application of the petitioner and adjudicate up on it under the provisions of appropriate law, and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 6445 OF 2013 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 direct the 1st respondent to decide the case on its own merit and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P LAKSHMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 2. K V SUBBA REDDY The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is seeking to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent in C.F. No. 2671/2008 in an unregistered I.D. filed in the year 2009. The Labour Court, Anantapur, had rejected the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce proof of the employee–employer relationship. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on daily wages for removal of scrap in the Zonal Stores, Kadapa. It is submitted that one Mr. M. Venkata Subbaiah was regularized. However, the petitioner was not regularized and, seeking regularization, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner was paid in cash by the respondent-Corporation and that these receipts would substantiate the existence of the employee–employer relationship. It is also submitted that the petitioner, along with two others, addressed a letter dated 30.03.2005 with regard to the tenders called for negotiation on rates relating to removal of scrap, tyres, etc. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages as a coolie for shifting unserviceable tyres from the J.Ward to the scrap yard. The petitioner was also engaged for cleaning the auction hall on the day of auction of the scrap, apart 4 from engagement in lot formation of unserviceable vehicles and unserviceable materials. It is submitted that the petitioner’s services were engaged as and when there was a requirement and payment was on a piecemeal basis. There was no instance for the respondents to engage the petitioner continuously for 240 days in a period of 12 months. 5. It is submitted that the I.D. filed by the petitioner would also indicate that no documents were filed along with the I.D., and though several opportunities were granted to the petitioner, the petitioner could not submit any proof of the employee–employer relationship. As such, remanding the matter back to the Tribunal would only cause further trouble to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 7. The short point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal in C.F. No. 2671 of 2008 deserves to be interfered with and whether the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, should be directed to reconsider the issue on submission of documents by the petitioner. 8. As seen from the I.D. filed before the trial Court, the petitioner has not referred to any agreement of engagement, and there is no whisper with regard to the employee–employer relationship in the petition except for stating that the petitioner is working in permanent, perennial, and continuous work in 5 nature. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner had put in continuous service for more than 240 days in a period of 12 months. 9. If that be the case, the petitioner ought to have filed proof of such service, and even assuming that the petitioner was working under a contractor, a certificate from the contractor duly stating the same would have to be produced. In the absence of such documents, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 09.02.2026 PNS