1 Date of reserved for orders : 29.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 09.07.2026 Date of uploading : 13.07.2026 APHC010088282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY, THE 9th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 4786/2024 Between: 1. B. MENEEKALA, W/O. V.PARTHA SARADHI,AGE 38 YEARS, OCC EX. DATA ENTRY OPERATOR (OUT SOURCING), O/O. GALAXY GRANITE PROJECT, CHEEMAKURTHY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R/O.5/100, RR CENTER-1, MANGAMPETA, KODUR ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. A P MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, REP. ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, (A GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING), D. NO. 294/1D, KANUR VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA 521 137 (AP. 2 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER HRC, O/O. VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE A.P. MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (A GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING), D. NO. 294/1D, KANURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA 521 137 (AP) 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, A.P. MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, GALAXY GRANITE PROJECT, CHIMAKURTHY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R N PRASHANTH 2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY WRIT PETITION NO: 28115/2024 Between: 1. TIPPANA SUBRAMANYAM, S/O SANKARAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O HNO 5/17, HARIJANAWADA, REDDIVARIPALLI (VILL AND POST), RAILWAY KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DIST, AP.- PIN 516101. 2. BATHALA UDAYNAGENDA, S/O NARASIMHESWARA PRASAD, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC WEIGHBRIDGE ASSISTANT (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D. NO 2/11 L,BALIJA STREET, RLY KODUR TOWN, RLY KODUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516101 3 3. GUNTHA SUNEEL KUMAR, S/O JAYANNA, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 25, SC COLONY, ALAVALAPADU VILLAGE, VEMPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, AP-516350 4. GUNTHA SUJATHA, W/O SUNEEL KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR.2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 25, SC COLONY, ALAVALAPADU VILLAGE, VEMPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, AP- 516350 5. MURAKUNTI SYAMALA, W/O RAMANA, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR.2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 9-155, RAMADASU COLONY, VEDANTHA PURAM, TIRUPATI RURAL, AP-517507 6. YEDIKA ANIL KUMAR, S/O MAHESWARAIAH, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 9/101, MADHAVARM PODU, HARIJANAWADA, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516101 7. MARRIBOINA MALLESWARAMMA, W/O BRAHMAIAH, AGED 36 YEARS OCC ATTENDER GR.2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 3/70, ANANTHARAJUPETA VILLAGE, R S KODUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516105 8. GANGANAGARI PRASANTH, GANGANAGARI PRASANTH S/O SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED 31 YEARS, OCC WEIGHBRIDGE ASSISTANT (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D.NO 16-65A JILLELAMADAKA, OBULAVARIPALLI (VI AND M AND POST), ANNAMAYYA DIST-516108 9. UPPUTURI SUMA, D/O NAGA RAJA RAO, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC JR, ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 6/372/2, VASANTHA NAGAR, RLYKODUR 4 MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT,AP- 516101 10. KANCHERLA VENKATESWARLU, S/O SIVA REDDY, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC WEIGHBRIDGE ASSISTANT (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 1-19, K C AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, REDDYVARIPALLI POST, RLYKODUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP- 516101 11. VADDI KISHORE, S/O SREENIVASULU, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC SUB ASSISTANT (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 4/159, RAGHAVARAJAPURAM HW, RLY KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516105 12. MALLU CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY, S/O SREENIVASULU REDDY, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR, 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O HNO 7/69 NEAR KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, OBULAVARIPALLI (VI AND POST AND MD), ANNAMAYYA DIST. PIN-516108 13. KATIKA JEEVAIAH, S/O DAVEEDU, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC SECURITY GUARD GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O DNO 5-414, RR STREET-5, MANGAMPETA, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516105 14. MARELLA NEELIMA, D/O RAJESWARI, AGED 31 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 10/526,LAXMI PARADISE, WY KODUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516101 15. SANDELLA SUGUNA, W/O MALLIKARJUNA, AGED 31 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O DNO 10-37, RANGANAYAKULAPETA, RLY KODUR ANDALAM, ANNAMAYYA DIST-516101 16. RUDDIRALA SUDHAKAR BABU, S/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 28 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O RAGHAVARAJUPURAM (VI AND POST), RLY KODUR MANDALAM, 5 ANNAMAYYA DIST-516105 17. TIPPIRIPATI VIJAY, S/O DEVADAS, AGED- 40 YEARS, OCC- TEACHER (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O MANGAMPETA, OBULAVARIPALLI MANADALAM, ANNAMAYAA DISTRICT, AP-516105 18. CHALLA NAGARAJU, S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED- 27 YEARS, OCC- JR. ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O RR CENTER -1, RR STREET-3, MANAGAMPETA, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDALAM, ANNAMAYA DIST-516105 19. KONDREDDY CHAKRAVARTHI, S/O VENATAIAH, AGED- 37 YEARS, OCC- SUB ASSISTANT (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO- 5-88, DHARAMMAPURAM STREET, RLY KODURU MANDAL, ANNAMAYA DISTRICT-516101 20. BEEDA VENKATA SUBBANNA, S/O VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED- 45 YEARS, OCC- ATTENDER GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO- 9/212B, RAMNAGAR, KAMALAPURAM YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AP-516289 21. GAGGUTUR BABAFAKRUDDIN, S/O MUSTAFA, AGED- 36 YEARS, OCC- ATTENDER GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO- 4.RR. CENTER-2, MANGAMPETA, ANNAMAYYA DIST, AP-516105 22. GOULA ADILAKSHMI, W/O POUL, AGED- 50 YEARS, OCC- ATTENDER GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO- 102, 9TH STREET, RR CENTER-1, KOTHA MANGAMPET, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516105 23. PEDDIBOYINA VENKATAKRISHNA, S/O VENKATARAMANA AGED- 29 YEARS, OCC- ATTENDER GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO- 6 1/172B-1, GONUMAKULAPALLE VILLAGE, VEERPANAYUNIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, AP-516321 24. TIPPANA RAVEESH PRABHU KUMAR, S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR.2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O DNO 5/16A, HARIJANAWADA, REDDI VARIPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516101 25. MADAGALAM VARA PRASAD, S/O NARAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC MINING MATE (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O RR CENTRE 1 RR STREET -3 MANGAMPETA (V) , OBULAVARIPALLI(M), ANNAMAYYA DIST, AP-516105 26. KALLURU PRASANTH, S/O PUSPARAJ, AGED 30 YEARS, OCC DRIVER (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O RRL STREET NO.9, MANGAMPETA, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DIST, AP-516105 27. DAKSHIRAJU SURESH, S/O SRINIVASA RAJU, AGED 28 YEARS, OCC WEIGHBRIDGE ASST. (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O DNO 3/40.SIRIGIRACHA PALLI, GOVINDAM PALLI, OBULAVARIPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-PIN 516105 28. SAKUNALA SREENIVASULU, S/O VENKATARAJU, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 2/169.BOMMAVARAM, OBULAVARIPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-PIN 516105 29. SHAIK MUBARAK, S/O SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA, AGED 24 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O DNO 10/419-L.M G ROAD, RAILWAY KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP- PIN 516101 7 30. THOTA GOPALAIAH, S/O VENKATACHALAPATHI, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC WEIGHBRIDGE ASST.( ON CONTRACT), R/O DNO 4-80A, CHENNARAJUPODU (P AND VI), OBULAVARIPALLI MANDALAM, AMAMAYYA DIST-AP-PIN-516108 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, , (A GOVT, OF A. P. UNDERTAKING), OFFICE D.N0.294/ID, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA - 521137, N.T.R. DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER, A.P. MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (A GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING), MANGAMPET BARYTES PROJECT, BRANCH OFFICE, MANGAMPET - 516 106, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. M/S SINGU SOLUTIONS, IV FLOOR, SRI SAINATH COMPLEX, 15/1, AMDALPET, GUNTUR 522002 (AP) 5. M/S V SUBBA REDDY, D. NO. 2/193, KAPUPALLI, MANGAMPET VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DIST., AP 516105 6. M/S SAI KRUPA MANPOWER AGENCY, 7/451, GROUND FLOOR, NEW KRISHNA NAGAR, RLY. KODUR (TOWN AND MANDAL), ANNAMAYYA DIST. 8 A.P. 516101 7. M/S M PRATAP REDDY, OUTSOURCING CONTRACTOR, D. NO. 3/18, ALIVELUMANGAPURAM VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DIST. 516110 8. M/S A REVATHI, OUTSOURCING CONTRACTOR, MANGAMPET VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DT. 516105 9. M/S P RAVI BABU, OUTSOURCING CONTRACTOR, D. NO. 19, MANGAMPET VILLGE, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DT. 516105 10. M/S SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA, OUTSOURCING AGENCY, 7/620-B, SURYA NAGAR, R.S. ROAD, RLY KODUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DT. 516105. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL 2. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 28948/2024 Between: 1. KORAMUTLA HARIPRASAD, S/O. K.CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER, R/O. RAGHAVARAJAPURAM, RAILWAY KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 9 2. K.PRASANNA KUMAR,, S/O. K.VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC WEIGH BRIDGE ASSISTANT, R/O. REDDYVARIPALLI, H/O. KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. N.NARASIMHULU,, S/O. VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, R/O. REDDYPALLI VILLAGE, PULLAMPETA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. S. PRAVEEN KUMAR,, S/O. S. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT GRADE- LL, R/O. REDDYPALLI VILLAGE, PULLAMPETA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. M. VIJAYABHASKAR REDDY,, S/O. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER, R/O. MANGAMPETA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 6. G. VARAPUTRA TEJA,, S/O. G. RAJASEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASISTANT GRADE- LL, R/O. MANGAMPETA,KADAPA DISTRICT. 7. K. SUNEEL,, S/O. K. DAVIDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC DRIVER, R/O. MANGAMPETA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 8. K. CHENGAL RAYUDU,, S/O. K. CHENGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL, MADHAVARAMPADU, H/W. KODURU, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 9. Y. SREEKANTH,, S/O. Y. JAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL, MADHAVARAMPADU, H/W. KODURU, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 10. T. SIVASANKARAIAH,, S/O. T.ESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSTANT GRADE-LL, 10 REDDYVARIPALLE VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 11. D. VIJAY KUMAR,, S/O. D.VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL ARUNDHATHIWADA, KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 12. K. MUNIKRISHNA,, S/O. VENKATA MUNI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS OCC ATTENDER, R/O. RR STREET- 4, MANGAMPETA, KADAPA DISTRICT. 13. P. VEERANJANEYA REDDY,, S/O. RAMANJANEYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC DRIVER, MUTHUKURU VILLAGE, VEMPALLE POST, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 14. C.CHARAN KUMAR, S/O. MURALI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL, RAGHAVARAJAPURAM, H.W. KODUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 15. T. NAGABHUSHANAM,, S/O. T. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL, OBILI, PENAGALUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 16. CHINTHAM SUNIL KUMAR,, S/O. PITCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 17. CHENNAMSETTY VINAY,, S/O. CHALAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC SUB ASSISTANT, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 18. T. NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O. T. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL, R/O. D.NO.2-10, REDDEPALLI VILLAGE, PULLAMPETA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 19. K. SREERAMULU,, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER, R/O. HARIJANAWADA, 11 LETA PALLI, KAMALAPURAM, 20. T. VIJAY KUMAR,, S/O. RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL, R.R.STREET, 4, MANGAMPETA, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 21. T. NAVEEN KUMAR REDDY,, S/O. T. VIJAY BHASKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC MINE MATE, R/O. APMDC QUARTERS, MANGAMPETA, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 22. C. SUBRAYUDU,, S/O. C. PATTABHI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RAGHAVARAJAPURAM, KODURU MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 23. M. SUKUMAR REDDY,, S/O. M. RAMASUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT, GRADE- LL, MANGAPALLI, CHITVEL MANDAL, 24. B. MADHU SUDHAN,, S/O. SUBBOJI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT GRADE-LL, R/O. CHOWDESWARI NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, MEERUGATUVARIPALLI, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 25. D.V.RAMANA REDDY,, S/O. D. SIVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. 1 -78-A, RAGHAVARAJAPURAM, RAILWAY KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 12 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LTD, (A GOVT, OF A.P. UNDERTAKING), OFFICE D.NO.294/1D,KANURU, VIJAYAWADA- 521 137, N.T.R DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER, A.P. MINERAL DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LTD., (A GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING),MANGAMPET BARYTES PROJECT, BRANCH OFFICE, MANGAMPET - 516 106, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. THE CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER, A.P. MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (A GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING), GALAXY GRANITE PROJECT, BRANCH OFFICE, CHIMAKURTHY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. M/S SINGU SOLUTIONS, IV FLOOR, SRI SAINATH COMPLEX, 15/1, ARNDALPET, GUNTUR - 522 002 6. M/S SAI KRUPA MANPOWER AGENCY, 7/451, GROUND FLOOR, NEW KRISHNA NAGAR, RLY. KODUR (TOWN AND MANDAL), ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, A.P. 516 101. RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 17.12.2024 VIDE I.A.NO.2 OF 2024 IN WP NO.28948 OF 2024 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL 2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE 13 WRIT PETITION NO: 33880/2025 Between: 1. PANA NANI, S/O PANA CHINNA, AGED 28 YEARS, OCC JUNIORASST.GR.IL, R/O H NO 40-17-146, PAKEERGUDEM, LABBIPET VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST, AP.- PIN 520010. (SI.NO. 23 IN THE LIST) 2. 2. BHAKTULA INDIRA, W/O B. SIVA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER (OS), R/O D. NO. 40-23-7, MANNAM SUBBAIAH STREET PAKEER GUDEM, LABBIPETA POST, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST., AP 520010. (SI.NO.35 IN THE LIST) 3. 3. LAKSHMIGARI SUDARSHAN, S/O GANGULAIAH AGED 26 YEARS, OCC OFFICE ASSISTANT, R/O H. NO. 7/329-30, NEW KRISHNA NAGAR RAILWAY KODURU, CUDAPPAH AP 516101 (SI.NO.37 IN THE LIST) 4. UMMADI VISWANTH REDDY, S/O UMMADI NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC SR. ASSISTANT, R/O H. NO. 13/4, KITCHAMAMBAPURAM, MANDHARAM, RAJAMPET, MANNUR, CUDDAPAH AP 516126 (SI.NO. 39 IN THE LIST) 5. GUGGULOTHU PRASHANTHI, W/O IRMELU NAIK AGED 33 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER, R/O 1-70, SUGALI COLONY, TADIGADAPA, KRISHNA DIST, AP 521137 (SI.NO. 40 IN THE LIST) 6. E. VAMSI KRISHNA, S/O SRINIVASA RAO AGED29 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR. II R/O H. NO. 13-222, RAJENDRANAGAR, VUYYURU, KRISHNA DIST. AP 521165 (SI.NO.41 IN THE LIST) 7. 7. POLANNAGARI HEMANTH KUMAR,, S/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE II, R/O H. NO. 10-97-2, RANGANAYUKULA 14 PETA, RAILWAY KODUR, CUDDAPAH, AP -516101 (SI.NO. 48 IN THE LIST) 8. 8. BOGGULA RAMANJENULU, S/O BOGGULA SRIRAMULU AGED 34 YEARS, OCCSECURITY GUARD GR.LL, R/O MANGAMPETA, OBULAVARIPALLI, CUDDPAH,AP 516108 (SI.NO.65 IN THE LIST) 9. 9. DASARI CHANGALRAYULU,, S/O DASARI SUBBULAIAH AGE 43 YEARS OCC MINE MATE, R/O HARIJANAWADA, RAGHAVARAJAPURAM, RAILWAY KODUR, CUDDAPAH AP 516105 (SI.NO. 95IN THE LIST) 10. PIDUGU JESSI, S/O SUNDARAM AGED 54 YEARS, OCCSECURITY GUARD GR. II R/O GANDHI NAGAR, RAILWAY KODUR, KODUR, CUDDAPAH 516101. (SI.NO. 66 IN THE LIST 11. TALARI RAMU, S/O TALARI SURYANARAYANA, AGED 30 YEARS, OCCJR. ASST. GR. II R/O D RR STREET, MANGAMPET, OBULAVARIPALLI MANGAMPET, CUDDAPAH AP 516105 (SI.NO. 97 IN THE LIST) 12. 12. PIKKILI HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O VENKATESWARIU, AGED 26 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSTT. GR. II, R/O P.K. PLLI, PODILI KONDA PALLE, PRAKASAM DIST, AP 523357 (SI.NO.123 IN THE LIST) 13. 13. K. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, S/O K. RAMACHANDRA REDDY AGE 41 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. II, R/O 2- 90-A, ANIMELA, VTC ANIMELA, PO ANIMELA, SUB DIST. VEERAPUNAYUNIPALLE DT. CUDAPPAH, AP 516 321 (SI.NO. 49 IN THE LIST) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 15 1. THE STATE OF AP, INDUSTRIES COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, CORPORATION LTD., (A GOVT, OF A. P. UNDERTAKING), OFFICED.NO.294/ID, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA - 521137 N.T.R. DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3 3. THE CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER, . A.P. MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (A GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING), MANGAMPET BARYTES PROJECT, BRANCH OFFICE, MANGAMPET - 516 106, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. 4. M/S SINGU SOLUTIONS, IV FLOOR, SRI SAINATH COMPLEX, 15/1, ARNDALPET, GUNTUR 522002 (AP) 5. 5. M/S M PRATAP REDDY, OUTSOURCING CONTRACTOR D. NO. 3/18, ALIVELUNNANGAPURAM VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DIST. 516110 6. 6. M/S REDDY ENTERPRISES, 32-26-16/1, VIJAYALAKSHMI NIVAS, MACHAVARANNDOWN, BESIDE VANI PUBLIC SCHOOL ELURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA 520 004 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 16 2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: 17 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION Nos.4786, 28115 & 28948 of 2024 and 33880 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.4786 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondents in discontinuing the petitioner along with others vide termination Office Order in APMDC/HRD/08/2021/576, dt 30.6.2021 and engaging/reengaging other similarly situated persons who were terminated along with petitioner vide Proc. APMDC/HRD/OS/2021/882, dt 29.7.2021 without engaging/reengaging the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on this subject by setting aside the impugned termination order dt 30.6.2021 in so far as petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to engage/reengage and continue the petitioner work as Data Entry Operator at Chimakurthy or Mangampeta at Galaxy Granite Project of A.P.Mineral Development Corporation Limited, as was done in case similarly situated terminated employees namely 1. Tippanna Subramanyam,2. Chowdavaram Subbarayudu, 3. Shodavaram Praveen Kumar and 4. Kairi Chapgalrayudu vide APMDC/HRD/OS/2021/882, dt 29.7.2021 with all consequential benefits ….” 18 W.P.No.28115 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus and set aside the proceedings issued the respondents to discontinue the services of the petitioners herein from 18.11.2024 and 22.11.2024 onwards vide letters (1) No. APMDC/Pr. and C/LOA/OS/2024/945 dated 18.11.2024, (2) No. APMDC/M Pet/ HRD/OS/Stoppage of Service/1648/2024-25 dated 18.11.2024, (3) No. APMDC/M Pet/ HRD/OS/Stoppage of Service/ 1679/ 2024-25 dated 21.11.2024, (4) No. APMDC/M Pet/ HRD/OS/ Stoppage of Service / 1678/2024-25 dated 21.11.2024 (5) No. APMDC/ M Pet/ HRD/ OS/ Stoppage of Service/1647/2024-25 dated 18.11.2024 (6) No. APMDC/ M Pet/ HRD/OS/Stoppage of Service/1649/2024-25 dated 18.11.2024, (7) No. APMDC/M Pet/HRD/OS/Stoppage of Service/1675/2024-25 dated 21.11.2024 and (8) No. APMDC/M Pet/HRD/OS/Stoppage of Service/ 1676/ 2024-25 dated 21.11.2024, without any valid reasons as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and human rights besides being violative of principles of rule of law and opposed to all principles of canons of norms of law and justice and contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court and set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the engagement of the petitioners by the respondent Corporation with all existing attendant and consequential benefits ….” 19 W.P.No.28948 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue an order, direction, writ, more particularly Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents to discontinue the services of the petitioners herein from 18.11.2024 and 22.11.2024 onwards vide letters (1) O.O.No.APMDC /HRD /TCOP /2024 /946, dated 18.11.2024, dated 18.11.2024,(2) No.APMDC /Pr. and C /LOA /OS /2024 /945, dated 18.11.2024, (2) No.APMDC /Mpet /HRD /OS /Stoppage of Service /1648 /2024- 25, dated 18.11.2024, (3) No.APMDC /M pet /HRD /OS /Stoppage of Service /1679 /2024-25,dated21.11.2024(4) No.APMDC /Pr. /LO / / /OS /2024 /1037,dated 20.11.2024, without any valid reasons as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and human rights besides being violative of principles of rule of law and opposed to all principles of cannons of norms of law and justice and contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court and set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the service of the petitioners by the respondent Corporation with all existing attendant and consequential benefits ….” W.P.No.33880 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents to discontinue the services of the petitioners herein from 18.11.2024 and 22.11.2024 onwards vide letters No. No. (1)APMDC/PrC/LOA/OS/2024/945 dated 18.11.2024, 20 (2) APMDC/Pr.C/ LOA/ OS/2024/1037 dated 20.11.2024, (3)APMDC/Pr. C/ LOA/ OS/2024/1039 dated 20.11.2024 and (4) APMDC/MPet/HRD/OS/Stoppag e of Service/ 167/2024- 25 dated 21.11.2024, without any valid reasons as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and human rights besides being violative of principles of rule of law and opposed to all principles of canons of norms of law and justice and contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court and set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the engagement of the petitioners by the respondent Corporation with all existing attendant and consequential benefits ….” 2. Heard Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.Raghu Veer and Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsels for the petitioners and learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, this Court heard them jointly, and they are being disposed of by this common order, taking W.P.No.28948 of 2024 as a leading case. 4. All the petitioners are outsourced employees engaged by the 2nd respondent - Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited (for short, „the Corporation‟) through the 21 outsourced agencies for carrying out regular and perennial nature of duties in its head office and different sites/projects. Some of the petitioners are under the category of land losers/house loss and dependent family members of the deceased employees of the 2nd respondent-Corporation. Majority of the petitioners have been working in the 2nd respondent-Corporation for a period exceeding four years and 240 days in each calendar year. By virtue of settlement arrived at before the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Hyderabad under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 04.02.2022, the 2nd respondent- Corporation has extended equal pay for equal work to the outsourced personnel working in the head office and other branches along with the Mangampet Barytes Project, Chimakurthy Black Galaxy Granite Project etc., and equivalent designations applicable for regular employees were also extended vide 2nd respondent-Corporation‟s office proceedings dated 30.01.2023. As the petitioners recruited on outsourcing basis from the year 2019, they have been directed to be discontinued from 18.11.2024 and 22.11.2024 onwards without any valid reasons. Hence, the same is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 22 5. As the 2nd respondent-Corporation has required the manpower on outsourcing basis for different nature of jobs and works, it has engaged 772 persons. Engagement of personnel either directly or on outsourcing basis and extracting work on year to year basis in the head office, site offices and project sites indicates the perennial nature of work. New appointments on outsourcing and contract basis made during the year 2019 onwards by recruiting 279 persons. Out of which, the 2nd respondent-Corporation sought to selectively discontinue the services of 123 persons, including the petitioners. Hence, the above action of the 2nd respondent is selective discrimination. In fact, as the 2nd respondent-Corporation sought to discontinue and disengage the services of some persons, they filed W.P.No.30648 of 2023, who were working at Mangampet Barytes Project, while continuing the other similarly situated persons, who were appointed subsequently and denial of continuation of services of the petitioners without any valid reason or justification, this Court vide order dated 29.11.2023 stayed the operation of the proceedings. 6. It is further stated that discontinuation or dispensing with the services of the petitioners is not sustainable and that the 23 petitioners have rendered considerable services to the 2nd respondent-Corporation, which extends beyond 240 days in each calendar year. They have gained experience by virtue of their long standing nature. The work and the engagement of the petitioners and others are perennial in nature and they are discharging the duties on par with the regular employees and there are no allegations against the petitioners. Hence, discontinuation of the petitioners without any valid reason, effecting their livelihood, is an unfair labour practice. The 2nd respondent, being a Corporation under the Government, should be treated as State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is duty bound to follow Part-III of the Constitution of India and particularly to comply with the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed questioning the proceedings dated 18.11.2024 of the 2nd respondent-Corporation and the consequential proceedings dated 21.11.2024 of the 4th respondent. Initially, the writ petitions were filed without impleading the contractual agencies i.e., respondent Nos.5 and 6 and subsequently, as per the directions of this Court dated 17.12.2024 they were impleaded as party respondents. 24 7. Reply to the above averments, the 2nd respondent has filed its counter on 12.12.2024. The writ petitions were filed assailing the discontinuation of services of the petitioners, who are outsourced employees, hired through outsourcing agencies and seeking to continue them in service as they are rendering service for more than 240 days in a year. The claim of the petitioners is baseless. 8. The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC) was incorporated on 24.02.1961 and engaged in commercial exploitation of various minerals and plays a proactive role in exploitation of valuable mineral resources and in the development of mining infrastructure in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The cadre strength of the 2nd respondent-Corporation is 531, while the total manpower engaged as on 01.05.2024 is 1414. The manpower budget has increased abundantly and overheads have been loaded heavily compared to the capacity of workings, revenue and other factors. Hence, 2nd respondent- Corporation has taken a policy decision to downsize and restructure the Corporation. The 2nd respondent-Corporation has discontinued the manpower, who are in excess and such 25 manpower neither recruited in a proper manner of recruitment nor against any vacancy of the position in the Corporation. 9. The specific case of the 2nd respondent-Corporation is that the removal of the employees is not with an intention to replace them with different persons, but only to downsize and restructure the Corporation. The method applied by the 2nd respondent- Corporation for this purpose is „last come first go‟ and therefore, the petitioners cannot plead any bias. The petitioners are not being replaced, but are only discontinued, as the 2nd respondent- Corporation does not require their services any longer. Further, the petitioners cannot plead any right over their employment. The petitioners ought to demonstrate how the writ petition is maintainable in the absence of violation of any right. Most of the outsourcing personnel are not appointed against approved cadre strength or vide recruitment process. The positions of outsourcing personnel are not perennial in nature. They worked for more than four years does not hold any significance, as they are outsourced employees, who cannot claim any vested right. Further, the claim of the petitioners that some of them are land losers and family members of the deceased employees of the 2nd respondent-Corporation is false. All the petitioners have joined 26 without any process of recruitment or against approved vacancy and in particular on outsourcing basis which does not carry any relationship between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. As the 2nd respondent-Corporation has taken a policy decision for downsizing and restructuring the manpower strength of the Corporation, it has been working out the requirement of the exact manpower in all the working locations. Recent years about 300+ employees have been engaged without requirement or without any clear job description and most of them are idle and do not have any job to operate. However, the 2nd respondent- Corporation has continued to pay them for all these years without any constructive work. As the 2nd respondent-Corporation is established under the Companies Act, 1956, it is purely a commercial organization and cannot unnecessarily waste its resources on unproductive and excess employment. 10. Further, the 2nd respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit on 22.01.2025. The 2nd respondent-Corporation is duly registered under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (Act 37 of 1970) and all the outsourcing agencies with which the 2nd respondent-Corporation has duly entered into contracts for the engagement of workman or all the 27 licensed contractors under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. In fact, in the light of the legal disputes that are being raised against termination/discontinuation, in order to have a detailed study on the excess manpower, the 2nd respondent-Corporation has engaged the services of Centre for Organization and Development, Hyderabad for the man power study of APMDC on 13.12.2024. Further, the contention of reengagement of some of the other outsourced employees were replied stating that the 2nd respondent-Corporation has received instructions from Ministry of Mines, Government of Andhra Pradesh and CMO to deploy 6 personnel and also received instructions from the Government to deploy 2 personnel to meet the works at Peshi of Principal Secretary to Government. Therefore, the 2nd respondent- Corporation has engaged the said personnel and as such, they are not working for the Corporation and their services are subjected to the time of the office of the Minister in power and even the expenditure towards their monthly wages will be posted to the Government for reimbursement in due course of time. Accordingly, they have also given particulars of the persons those who are disengaged and subsequently engaged only at the request of Hon‟ble Minister and the Principal Secretary to 28 Government and they were reengaged and placed at the disposal of Hon‟ble Minister and Principal Secretary‟s Peshi. Further, they have also filed the particulars of the persons those who are engaged under rehabilitation and resettlement scheme and they are being continued without any disturbance. Finally, they have mainly relied on the maintainability of the writ petition in respect of the claim of outsourced employees and there is no master and servant relationship between the State and the outsourced employees as all the petitioners were engaged through contractors i.e., newly impleaded respondent Nos.5 and 6. 11. Based on the above pleadings, Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel leading the batch has made his submissions that there is discrimination in discharging/terminating the services of the petitioners without any valid ground. As all the petitioners were appointed in 2019 and 2021 and they have completed more than four years, they are entitled for continuation in the said post. When there are no allegations against the petitioners and they are working with utmost satisfaction of the 2nd respondent-Corporation, their services cannot be disengaged. Further, he also placed reliance on engagement of some other personnel who were appointed subsequent to the petitioners and 29 their services are being continued without considering the case of the petitioners which is nothing but selective discrimination. Though the petitioners were appointed through respondent Nos.5 and 6 agencies, the fact remains that their salaries were being paid through the funds of the 2nd respondent–Corporation and also working for the benefit of the Corporation. Hence, there is an existence of master and servant relationship between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent as the petitioners are working for the benefit of the Corporation and also under the instructions of the authorities of the Corporation. Hence, there is a direct relationship of master and servant. Hence, the writ petitions are maintainable. In fact, on earlier occasion as some of the persons were terminated, they have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.30648 of 2023. As per the directions of this Court in the above referred orders, the services of the petitioners therein were continued. Hence, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same relief. 12. Reply to the said contentions, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation has made his submissions based on the averments made in the counter. He has taken an objection with regard to 30 maintainability of the writ petitions. He submitted that there is no irregularity or illegality in dispensing with the services of the petitioners. In fact, the cadre strength of the 2nd respondent- Corporation is about 531 against that there is a total manpower engaged as on 01.05.2024 is 1414. The same is beyond the requirement of the Corporation. When that being the factual situation, the Corporation has requested the Centre for Organisation and Development, Hyderabad for manpower study of APMDC. In fact, they have reviewed the entire situation and decided to downsize the manpower. Accordingly, they have decided to disengage the services of 123 persons. The same is in accordance with policy decision. In fact, while downsizing the manpower, the 2nd respondent-Corporation has strictly followed the method of „last come first go‟. Though there are vague allegations made by the petitioners, the respondents have strictly followed the said principle while disengaging. No doubt, as contended by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent-Corporation has reengaged only eight persons i.e., 2 Drivers, 2 Senior Assistants, 2 Office Subordinates and 1 DPO and 1 AM. The said engagements are at the request of Hon‟ble Minister, CMO and Principal Secretary‟s Peshi. Accordingly, they were engaged and 31 sent to the respective places at their request. The said engagement is purely co-terminus. Further, the expenditure towards their monthly salaries will be reimbursed from the concerned Secretariat. In the said circumstances, the petitioners cannot said that the 2nd respondent-Corporation has not followed „last come first go‟ principle. Even according to the admitted facts, based on the affidavit as well as the counter, it clearly discloses that all the petitioners were engaged and working against the non-existing cadre strength. 13. Further, he mainly contended that all the petitioners were engaged by respondent Nos.5 and 6 agencies. In fact, the 2nd respondent-Corporation has entered into a specific agreement with respondent Nos.5 and 6 and as the same was placed as a part of record along with the counter. He also contended that the 2nd respondent has not issued any termination/ disengagement orders, which clearly established by the impugned proceedings dated 18.11.2024, requesting all the Chief Project Officers, Mangampet Barytes Project, Mangampet to stop the services of the personnel and submit compliance report. Further, the consequential orders also clearly disclose that the Managing Director and also Chief Executive Officers were requested the 32 concerned contracting agencies to stop the services of the personnel. Hence, there are no direct orders dispensing with the services of the petitioners by the 2nd respondent or the 4th respondent. That itself clearly indicates that there is no direct relationship of employer and employee/master and servant relationship between respondent Nos.2 and 4 and the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are not able to place any material to show that there is a direct master and servant relationship between respondent Nos.2 and 4 and the petitioners. 14. In fact, the learned Advocate General has placed reliance on the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.310 of 2024 and batch, wherein the facts are identical and similar. Even in the said batch the services of the petitioners were engaged by the contractor and working under the APEPDCL as shift operators. In fact, in the said batch of writ appeals, the very contention of the petitioners was that as some of the petitioners were disengaged, they approached this Court and this Court has given directions to continue their services. Hence, all the petitioners in the above said batch were also entitled for the same relief. In the said batch the point for consideration is that whether is there any relationship of employer 33 and employee between the petitioners and the writ appellants and whether non-regularization of their services by the writ appellants is unfair labour practice? In the said batch of writ appeals, the Division Bench has considered the aspect based on the observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi1, State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari2 and R.K.Panda v. Steel Authority of India3. 15. No doubt, in Umadevi‟s case (supra 1), the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that the initial appointment must be done by the competent authority and they must be working against a sanctioned post. 16. In the instant case, admittedly, no process of selection was undertaken and all the petitioners were appointed against non- existing vacancies and contrary to the cadre strength. 17. In M.L.Kesari‟s case (supra 2), the Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed that the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously without any assistance of Court 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2010) 9 SCC 247 3 1994 (5) SCC 304 34 orders. Where the appointments are not made or continued against a non-sanctioned post, the said appointment should be treated as illegal appointments and where the appointments are made in a sanctioned post without undergoing the process of selection, the said appointments are to be treated as irregular. 18. In R.K.Panda‟s case (supra 3), the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under: “7. It is true that with the passage of time and purely with a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old employees. In fact such a condition is incorporated in the contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularisation in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer in course of time and whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smokescreen, as has been urged in this case, is a question of fact and has to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not possible for the High Court or this Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such questions, only on the basis of 35 the affidavits. It need not be pointed out that in all such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a matter which has to be established on material produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the competent fora to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them.” 19. By referring the above observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, finally, the Division Bench at paragraph Nos.53, 55, 58 and 59 held as under: “53. In our view, the question whether there is relationship of employer and employee between the writ appellant and the writ petitioners is a question of fact and for applying the judgment in the case of Suresh (supra), there should be a specific finding of said fact, may be after lifting of veil or piercing the veil. To record the finding, the material would be required, the evidence would be required and it will also have to be seen, whether the writ appellant was a licenced principal employer under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, and the contractor(s), as named in the writ petitions, was a licenced contractor, as also whether there was any genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant point of time or not. Whether the contract labourers became employees of the principal employer in course of time and 36 whether the engagement and employment through contractor was a mere camouflage and required to be established on the basis of requisite material. 55. There is also nothing to show that in spite of there being sanctioned posts, the services of the writ petitioners were not being regularized or that the writ petitioners were engaged against the sanctioned posts though it was the writ petitioners‟ case that they were engaged against sanctioned posts, but the same was denied by the writ appellant. So, if there were no sanctioned posts for regularization, non-regularization would not amount to unfair trade practice. 58. So far as the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned when the determination of the lis, is dependent on question of facts, being involved, as in the present case, whether there was relationship of employer and employee between the writ petitioners and the writ appellants, on which there was no finding by Industrial Court or Labour Court as was the case of Suresh (supra) which had arisen from adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, in our view, the writ petition would not be the appropriate remedy to be approached directly and particularly when the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider and grant such relief, on determination of relevant factual aspects based on material/evidence before those Courts/Tribunals. 59. In view of the aforesaid discussion, our conclusions are: (i) As per both the judgments in Suresh (supra) or/and Umadevi (supra), there must be relationship of employer and employee. In Umadevi (supra), the appointment was 37 by employer, might have been irregular and in Suresh (supra) there was a finding by the Industrial Tribunal that there was relationship of employer and employee between the workmen and based on such finding the High Court had decided the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, any such finding by the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal is lacking. (ii) In the absence of any finding on the aspect of the relationship of the employer and employee between the writ appellants and the writ petitioners, the direction for regularization is unsustainable. (iii) The question whether there is relationship of employer and employee between the writ appellants and the writ petitioners is a question of fact. To record the finding, the material would be required. The evidence would be required. It will also have to be seen whether the writ appellant is a licenced principal employer and the contractor, as named in the writ petitions, was a licenced contractor. It will also have to be seen whether there was any genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant point of time or not, and whether the contract labourers became employees of the principal employer in course of time and whether the engagement and employment through contractor was a mere camouflage. All this is required to be established on the basis of requisite material, may be after lifting of veil or piercing the veil. (vii) The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy to be approached directly in such matters seeking regularization, and 38 particularly, when the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal have got the jurisdiction to consider such aspect and on the determination of the relevant factual aspects based on material they have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders for regularization.” 20. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the facts are not much in dispute. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that dispensing/terminating the services of the petitioners was without having any valid reasons and also alleged selective discrimination, he was unable to place any material on record in support of the plea of selective discrimination. Though additional material papers filed by the petitioners contending that the services of certain persons, who were engaged subsequent to them, were reengaged, the said contention was replied with supporting evidence by the 2nd respondent in its additional counter affidavit. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there was no selective discrimination and the engagement of the subsequent appointees was based on the requests made by the Minister and the CMO which was purely co-terminus in nature based on administrative necessities. Hence, the same cannot be construed as selective discrimination. 39 21. As far as the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions raised by the learned Advocate General is well considered by the Division Bench in an identical matter. In fact in R.K.Panda‟s case (supra 3) in the above referred paragraph, the Hon‟ble Apex Court clearly held that whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer in course of time and whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smokescreen, are questions of fact. But, the question of fact has to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not possible for the High Court to decide such questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It was clearly held that direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the competent for adjudication. Finally, the Division Bench, after taking into consideration all the relevant law, held that determination of the lis is dependent on question of facts, being involved, in the case, particularly with regard to relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and the respondents. Consequently, it was held that a writ 40 petition would not be an appropriate remedy to be approached directly. 22. In fact, this Court, following the above referred judgment, has also disposed of an identical matter in W.P.No.4351 of 2026 holding that the shift operators working under the contractor do not have any direct employer and employee relationship with the Corporation. 23. Considering the observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment and considering the facts and law, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly, all the petitioners were appointed against the non-existing posts and the 2nd respondent-Corporation being a commercial entity has taken a decision to resize their structure and disengage the employees working on contract basis. In view of the observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and also the Division Bench in the above referred judgments, the petitioners failed to produce any material to substantiate or establish the direct nexus with respondent Nos.2 and 4. As the petitioners were engaged by the contractor and the impugned orders were also given directing the contractor to disengage the services of the petitioners, this Court is of the 41 opinion that there is no direct relationship of employer and employee. Hence, it holds that the writ petitions are not maintainable. The only remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the concerned Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court to determine the relevant questions of fact on the basis of the material and evidence produced before it. 24. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. The interim order granted on 02.12.2024 in W.P.No.28115 of 2024 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 09.07.2026 Ivd Whether the order is: Speaking No Reasoned Yes Reportable No Non-reportable Yes 42 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION Nos.4786, 28115 & 28948 of 2024 and 33880 of 2025 Dated: 09.07.2026 Ivd