Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kowluri Bala Subramanyam Reddy vs State Of on 1 May, 2026
APHC010288312021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3458]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NOS: 17629 OF 2021 & 19826 OF 2020
WRIT PETITION NO: 17629 OF 2021
Between:
1. KOWLURI BALA SUBRAMANYAM REDDY,, S/O.
K.LAKSHMIKARREDDY, AGED 35 YEARS.
2. PARLA SRINIVASULU,, S/O. P.YANADAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS.
3. KAMBHAMPATI SUDARSAN,, S/O. K.NARASIMHULU, AGED 34
YEARS.
4. MUDE DEVADAS NAIK,, S/O. M. PEDDANNA NAIK, AGED 45
YEARS.
5. VESAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY,, S/O. V. RAGHURAMI REDDY,
AGED 32YEARS.
6. DASARI VENKATESH,, S/O. D. THULASAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS.
7. KUNCHAN SUBRAMANYAM,, S/O. K. NAGAMANAIAH, AGED 34
YEARS.
8. CHENEPALLI NAGARAJU,, S/O. C. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED
31YEARS.
9. POGILI RAJA REDDY,, S/O. P. SUBBARAMI REDDY, AGED 34
YEARS.
10. CHANDRAGIRI NARASIMHULU,, S/O. C. PENCHALAIAH, AGED 34
YEARS.
11. THALLAM PURUSHOTHAM REDDY,, S/O. T. VENKATA REDDY,
AGED 36YEARS.
12. DASARI CHALAPATHI,, S/O. D. SUBBAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS.
2
13. GUNISETTI VASANTHA KUMARI,, D/O. G. RAMA SUBBAIAH,
AGED 48 YEARS.
14. PASUPULATI SUBRAMANYAM,, S/O. P. SUBBA RAMAIAH, AGED
34 YEARS.
15. MINUKU VENKATA NARASIMHULU,, S/O. M. NARASIMHULU,
AGED 32 YEARS.
16. VESAM VENKATA RAMANA REDDY,, S/O. V. JAYARAMI REDDY,
AGED 34 YEARS.
17. BASINENI SUBHASHINI,, D/O. B. RAMAIAH, AGED 31 YEARS.
18. PULLAGANTI BALA SUBRAMANYAM,, S/O. P. VENKATA
SUBBAIAH, AGED 31 YEARS.
19. GALLA LAKSHMANA KUMAR,, S/O. G. VENKATA SUBBAIAH,
AGED 38 YEARS.
20. AVULA NETTIKANTAIAH,, S/O. A. NAGAPPA, AGED 32 YEARS.
21. VESAM RAMA CHANDRA REDDY,, S/O. V. VENKATA SUBBA
REDDY, AGED 54 YEARS.
22. KONETI VEERA SWAMY,, S/O. K. BALA SUNKANNA, AGED 32
YEARS.
23. SHAIK SALEEM,, S/O. S. BASHA SAHEEB, AGED 41 YEARS.
24. MODI SIVAIAH,, S/O. M. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 34 YEARS.
25. MODI SUBRAMANYAM,, S/O. M. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 31
YEARS.
26. MADAGALAM RAJAIAH,, S/O. M. PERUMAL, AGED 48 YEARS.
27. SHOWDAVARAM SURESH BABU,, S/O. S. SUBBAIAH, AGED 41
YEARS.
28. HASANAPURAM SUBBARAYUDU,, S/O. H. NAGAIAH, AGED 44
YEARS.
29. GALLA GIRIDHAR,, S/O. G. SESHADRI, AGED 31 YEARS.
30. GALLA DHANUNJAYA,, S/O. G. SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED 35 YEARS.
31. PENUGONDA KODANDA RAMUDU,, S/O. P. RAMUDU, AGED 36
YEARS.
32. PALLATI INDIRA KIRAN KUMARI,, D/O. P. LAKSHMI KULASEKHAR,
AGED 41 YEARS.
3
33. KARUMANCHI PUSHPALATHA,, D/O. K. NARASIMHULU, AGED 34
YEARS.
34. POGILI CHANDRAKALA,, D/O. P. VENKATA REDDY, AGED 34
YEARS.
35. SUREPALLI CHINNA REDDAMMA,, D/O. S. PENCHALAIAH, AGED
34 YEARS.
36. SINGIRI VIJAYA,, D/O. S. NARAYANA, AGED 35 YEARS.
37. GANTA SUBBA RAYUDU,, S/O. G. RAMAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS.
38. LAVURI THULASI,, D/O. L. DAMODARAM, AGED 32 YEARS.
39. B. CHANDRA SEKHAR,, S/O. B. JAYA RAMAIAH, AGED 31 YEARS.
40. GUNDRATHI ANIL KUMAR,, S/O. G. ADINARAYANA, AGED 37
YEARS.
41. CHENI NARESH,, S/O. C. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED 33 YEARS.
42. GUNIPATI LAKSHMIKANTH,, S/O. G. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 34
YEARS.
43. GALLA SYAMALA,, S/O. G. VENAKATA RAMANA, AGED 38 YEARS.
44. GRANDHE CHANDRA SEKHAR,, S/O. G. NARAYANA, AGED 43
YEARS.
45. PASALA NARASIMHULU,, S/O. P. RAMAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS.
46. HANUMANTHU NAGA RAJA,, S/O. H. ESWARAIAH, AGED 41
YEARS.
47. BATHALA HARI,, S/O. B. SUBBANNA, AGED 31 YEARS.
48. KOTARU PRATHIBHA,, D/O. K. CHANCHAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS.
49. NOSINA NARASIMHULU,, S/O. N. PENCHALAIAH, AGED 39
YEARS.
50. KUPPALA MUNI CHANDRA,, S/O. K. JAGANADHAM, AGED 54
YEARS.
51. CHINTHAGINJALA SUBRAMANYAM,, S/O. C. RAMANAIAH, AGED
40 YEARS.
52. BATTALA SIVA KUMAR,, S/O. B. NAGA RAJU, AGED 36 YEARS.
53. KUPPALA GOWRI DEVI,, D/O. K. CHINNA BODAIAH, AGED 48
YEARS.
4
54. MODAITHAPU NARESH,, S/O. M. CHALAPATHI, AGED 29 YEARS.
55. PASUPULATI SURESH BABU,, S/O. P. PENCHALAIAH, AGED 36
YEARS.
56. GALLA NAGARAJU,, S/O. G. CHANDRA, AGED 33 YEARS.
57. LINGAM MOHAN,, S/O. L. NARASIMHULU, AGED 37 YEARS.
58. KOWLURI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY,, S/O. K. TIRUMALA REDDY,
AGED 54 YEARS.
59. GALLA DILEEP,, S/O. G. NARAYANA, AGED 32 YEARS.
60. LINGAM SUBRAMANYAM,, S/O. L. CHINNA SUBBARAYUDU, AGED
36 YEARS.
61. POKURU MURALI,, S/O. P. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 44 YEARS.
62. GURASALA DINESH,, S/O. G. RANGAIAH, AGED 33 YEARS.
63. BANKAPURI SIVA ANIL KUMAR,, S/O. B. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED
31 YEARS.
64. NARADASU MANIKANTA,, S/O. N. RAMA CHANDRAIAH, AGED 31
YEARS.
65. KUNTUR HARI BABU,, S/O. K. SREENIVASULU, AGED 35 YEARS.
66. PULLAGANTI ARUNA,, D/O. P. SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED 35 YEARS.
(ALL ARE FOR THE SERVICES, NOTICES ETC. KOWLURI BALA
SUBRAMANYAM REDDY, S/O. K.LAKSHMIKAR REDDY, AGED 35
YEARS, AYYAPUREDDY PALLI VILLAGE, MANGAMPET,
OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT)
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE AP MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS
VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, D.NO. 294/1D, 100
FEET ROAD, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. G V SHIVAJI
5Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V R N PRASHANTH
2. N JEEVAN KUMAR
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
WRIT PETITION NO: 19826/2020
Between:
1. ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD.,, THROUGH SRI K. RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, DGM (A.P.
MINING CORPORATION), S/O. LATE K. KONDA REDDY, AGED 59
YEARS, 294/1D 100 FEET ROAD TADIGADAPA, ENIKEPADU ROAD
KANURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA-
521137, AP.
…PETITIONER
AND
1. APDMC EMPLOYEES UNION, THROUGH K. BALASUBRAMANYAM
REDDY APMDC LTD MANGAMPET BARYTES PROJECT
RAILWAY KODUR, MANGAMPET KADAPA DISTRICT, AR
2. KOWLURI BALA SUBRAMANYAM REDDY, S/O. K.LAKSHMIKAR
REDDY, AGED 35 YEARS,
3. PARLA SRINIVASULU, S/O. P.YANADAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS.
4. KAMBHAMPATI SUDARSAN, S/O. K.NARASIMHULU, AGED 34
YEARS.
5. MUDE DEVADAS NAIK, S/O. M. PEDDANNA NAIK, AGED 45
YEARS.
6. VESAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/O. V. RAGHURAMI REDDY,
AGED 32YEARS.
7. DASARI VENKATESH, S/O. D. THULASAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS.
8. KUNCHAN SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. K. NAGAMANAIAH, AGED 34
YEARS.
9. CHENEPALLI NAGARAJU, S/O. C. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED
31YEARS.
10. POGILI RAJA REDDY, S/O. P. SUBBARAMI REDDY, AGED 34
YEARS.
6
11. CHANDRAGIRI NARASIMHULU, S/O. C. PENCHALAIAH, AGED 34
YEARS.
12. THALLAM PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, S/O. T. VENKATA REDDY,
AGED 36YEARS.
13. DASARI CHALAPATHI, S/O. D. SUBBAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS.
14. GUNISETTI VASANTHA KUMARI, D/O. G. RAMA SUBBAIAH,
AGED 48 YEARS
15. PASUPULATI SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. P. SUBBA RAMAIAH,
AGED 34 YEARS.
16. MINUKU VENKATA NARASIMHULU, S/O. M. NARASIMHULU,
AGED 32 YEARS.
17. VESAM VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, S/O. V. JAYARAMI REDDY,
AGED 34 YEARS.
18. BASINENI SUBHASHINI, D/O. B. RAMAIAH, AGED 31 YEARS.
19. PULLAGANTI BALA SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. P. VENKATA
SUBBAIAH, AGED 31 YEARS.
20. GALLA LAKSHMANA KUMAR, S/O. G. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED
38 YEARS.
21. AVULA NETTIKANTAIAH, S/O. A. NAGAPPA, AGED 32 YEARS.
22. VESAM RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, S/O. V. VENKATA SUBBA
REDDY, AGED 54 YEARS.
23. SHAIK SALEEM, S/O. S. BASHA SAHEEB, AGED 41 YEARS.
24. MODI SIVAIAH, S/O. M. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 34 YEARS.
25. MODI SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. M. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 31 YEARS.
26. MADAGALAM RAJAIAH, S/O. M. PERUMAL, AGED 48 YEARS.
27. SHOWDAVARAM SURESH BABU, S/O. S. SUBBAIAH, AGED 41
YEARS.
28. HASANAPURAM SUBBARAYUDU, S/O. H. NAGAIAH, AGED 44
YEARS
29. GALLA GIRIDHAR, S/O. G. SESHADRI, AGED 31 YEARS.
30. GALLA DHANUNJAYA, S/O. G. SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED 35 YEARS.
31. PENUGONDA KODANDA RAMUDU, S/O. P. RAMUDU, AGED 36
7
YEARS.
32. PALLATI INDIRA KIRAN KUMARI, D/O. P. LAKSHMI KULASEKHAR,
AGED 41 YEARS.
33. KARUMANCHI PUSHPALATHA, D/O. K. NARASIMHULU, AGED 34
YEARS.
34. POGILI CHANDRAKALA, D/O. P. VENKATA REDDY, AGED 34
YEARS.
35. SUREPALLI CHINNA REDDAMMA, D/O. S. PENCHALAIAH,
AGED 34 YEARS.
36. SINGIRI VIJAYA, D/O. S. NARAYANA, AGED 35 YEARS.
37. GANTA SUBBA RAYUDU, S/O. G. RAMAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS.
38. LAVURI THUIASI, D/O. L. DAMODARAM, AGED 32 YEARS.
39. B CHANDRA SEKHARRAYALU, S/O. B. JAYA RAMAIAH, AGED 31
YEARS.
40. GUNDRATHI ANIL KUMAR, S/O. G. ADINARAYANA, AGED 37
YEARS.
41. CHENI NARESH, S/O. C. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED 33 YEARS.
42. GUNIPATI LAKSHMIKANTH, S/O. G. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 34
YEARS.
43. GALLA SYAMALA, S/O. G. VENAKATA RAMANA, AGED 38 YEARS.
44. GRANDHE CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O. G. NARAYANA, AGED 43
YEARS.
45. PASALA NARASIMHULU, S/O. P. RAMAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS.
46. HANUMANTHU NAGA RAJA, S/O. H. ESWARAIAH, AGED 41
YEARS.
47. BATHALA HARI, S/O. B. SUBBANNA, AGED 31 YEARS.
48. KOTARU PRATHIBHA, D/O. K. CHANCHAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS.
49. NOSINA NARASIMHULU, S/O. N. PENCHALAIAH, AGED 39 YEARS.
50. KUPPALA MUNI CHANDRA, S/O. K. JAGANADHAM, AGED 54
YEARS.
51. CHINTHAGINJALA SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. C. RAMANAIAH, AGED
40 YEARS.
8
52. BATTALA SIVA KUMAR, S/O. B. NAGA RAJU, AGED 36 YEARS.
53. KUPPALA GOWRI DEVI, D/O. K. CHINNA BODAIAH, AGED 48
YEARS.
54. MADITHAPU NARESH, S/O. M. CHALAPATHI, AGED 31 YEARS.
55. PASUPULATI SURESH BABU, S/O. P. PENCHALAIAH, AGED 36
YEARS.
56. GALLA NAGARAJU, S/O. G. CHANDRA, AGED 33 YEARS.
57. LINGAM MOHAN, S/O. L. NARASIMHULU, AGED 37 YEARS.
58. KOWLURI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, S/O. K. TIRUMALA REDDY,
AGED 54 YEARS
59. GALLA DILEEP, S/O. G. NARAYANA, AGED 32 YEARS.
60. LINGAM SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. L. CHINNA SUBBARAYUDU, AGED
36 YEARS.
61. BANKAPURI SIVA ANIL KUMAR, S/O. B. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED
31 YEARS.
62. PULLAGANTI ARUNA, D/O. P. SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED 35 YEARS.
63. KUNTUR HARI BABU, S/O. K. SREENIVASULU, AGED 35 YEARS.
(ALL ARE FOR THE SERVICES, NOTICES ETC. KOWLURI BALA
SUBRAMANYAM REDDY, S/O. K.LAKSHMIKAR REDDY, AGED 35
YEARS, AYYAPUREDDY PALLI VILLAGE, MANGAMPET,
OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.)
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 63 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 03.12.2025 VIDE IA.NO.1 OF 2022 IN WP.NO.19826 OF
2020.
…RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V R N PRASHANTH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G V SHIVAJI
2. N JEEVAN KUMAR
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
9The Court made the following common order:
Heard Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.17629 of 2021 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 63 in
W.P.No.19826 of 2020, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services II
and Sri N.Jeevan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for APMDC appearing for
the respondents.
2. The instant writ petition in W.P.No.17629 of 2021 is filed challenging the
action of the 2nd respondent in failing to regularise the services of the
members of the petitioner Union despite the Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court award in I.D.No.9 of 2012, and further challenges the action of
the respondents in continuing to employ the petitioners as trainees without
regularising their services. The petitioners have sought a consequential
direction to regularise the service of the petitioners with all consequential
benefits, with effect from the award passed in I.D.No.9 of 2012 dated
23.07.2019.
3. It is contended that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for
establishment of AP Mineral Development Corporation. In terms of the
G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, the petitioners were given an assurance for
providing employment under the category of displaced persons.
4. It is contended that in terms of the said G.O. the petitioners were
appointed as trainees in the year 2008. The respective qualifications of the
10
members of the petitioner’s Union (hereinafter referred to as “workmen”)
range between graduation in Engineering to SSC. Since the said date of initial
appointment, the workmen have been rendering their duties as Trainees.
Despite working for a longer period, the respondents still consider the
petitioners as trainees and pay them nominal salaries. Despite the completion
of the minimum period of 240 days under Section 25B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), their services were not
regularized. In this regard, the Management and the representatives of the
workmen entered into an agreement in the presence of the Assistant Labour
Commissioner under Section 12(3) of the Act dated 05.04.1998. As per the
said agreement, the Management was under an obligation to regularize the
services of the trainees who had completed 240 days of training. Despite the
said arrangement, as the Management did not take any measures to
regularize the services, the petitioners’ Union filed an Industrial Dispute. As
the said dispute was not referred to the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioners
Union filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4061 of 2012. The said writ petition was
disposed of directing the respondents therein to take necessary steps for
referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. As per the said
directions, the Central Government referred the dispute to the Central
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.
5. In pursuance of the said directions, the petitioners have filed their claim
statement before the Tribunal. The same was numbered as I.D.No.9 of 2012.
The Tribunal, after hearing the respondents, disposed of the I.D.No.9 of 2012
11
vide award dated 23.07.2019, observing that the services of the petitioners
Union are required to be regularized providing equal pay for equal work.
Accordingly, answered the Reference observing that action of the
respondent’s Corporation in not regularizing the services of the members of
the petitioner’s Union is not justified.
6. It is contended that despite the said award, the respondents have not
passed any order regularizing the services of the workmen. Thus the
petitioners have approached this Court by way of writ petition in
W.P.No.17629 of 2021. The Corporation also filed another writ petition in
W.P.No.19826 of 2020 challenging the award of the Tribunal.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that vide
G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 a scheme has been brought into effect
wherein employment for displaced persons was granted, though initially on
temporary basis, it provides for regularisation. Despite long years of service
more than 15 years, the workmen are being continued on temporary status. It
is further contended that on the basis of an award passed by the same
Tribunal in I.D.No.1 of 2022 the services of similarly situated persons were
regularised. It is contended that the petitioners have approached the
Government as well as the Corporation seeking implementation of the order of
Tribunal. The Government has taken a decision to implement the order of the
Tribunal. However, no orders were passed in the said regard.
12
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance of the Judgment
of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh and others vs. State of
U.P.1 and the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar
and others vs. Union of India and others2 contends that the petitioners are
entitled for regularization.
9. It is contended by the petitioners that they have been working against
regular vacancies and their long years of service reflect the perennial nature
of their duties.
10. Sri N.Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
would contend that the members of the petitioners’ Union were appointed as
long back as 15 years as trainees. Their services are still considered as
trainees.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits
that the petitioners were not regular employees of their Corporation. As they
were appointed temporarily as trainees, their services cannot be regularised.
12. It is further contended that no assurances were ever given by the
Management. The workmen cannot claim as a matter of right the
regularisation of their services. The petitioners cannot claim themselves as
workmen under the Act. As they were engaged as trainees, the provisions of
Apprentices Act, 1961 would apply. It is contended that while appointing the
workmen on temporary basis as trainees, the regular selection process was
1
Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 dated 19.08.2025
2
SLP (C) Nos.22241-42 of 2016 dated 30.01.2024
13
not followed. Whenever, permission was accorded by the State Government
for filling up the regular vacancies, the Corporation would issue a public
advertisement by issuing public recruitment notifications inviting applications
from all eligible candidates.
13. The nature of appointment in the case of members of the petitioners
Union would not call for any regularization. It is further argued that there is no
master and servant relationship between the workmen and the Management.
The cadre strength of the Corporation does not have sanctioned posts
corresponding to trainee positions. Regularisation, contrary to the cadre
strength the regularisation of services cannot be granted. It is further argued
that the State Government is proper and necessary party to the writ petition
however, the petitioners have failed to implead the State Government, on the
said ground alone the writ petition is deserves to be dismissed.
14. It is further argued that the members of the petitioners Union in the
instant case cannot be regarded as “Workmen” within the meaning of Section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue raised in the present case.
15. Sri N. Jeevan Kumar, learned counsel for the Management argues that
as the members of the petitioner Union were appointed as Trainees, any
dispute regarding their service would be governed by the provisions of the
Apprentices Act, 1961. And a Trainee cannot be considered as “workman”,
and he does not have any statutory right to claim an appointment. The
14
employer is under no statutory obligation to employ him, nor can he be
considered for absorption. An apprentice remains an apprentice trainee during
the period of training and will not be treated as a workman. They would only
be provided with training in accordance with the provisions of the Apprentices
Act and the Rules. They are not entitled to seek regularization. In this regard
the learned counsel for the Management relies on the Judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Bhola
Singh 3 , Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited vs. Harkesh
Chand and others4, U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh
and another5, Managing Director, Hindustan Photo Films and another vs.
H.B.Vinobha and others6, State of Jammu and Kashmir and others vs.
District Bar Association, Bandipora 7, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals
Limited vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited8 and the
judgment of erstwhile Composite High Court at Hyderabad in the case of
Executive Engineer, APSRTC, Karimnagar vs. K.Kanakaiah and another9.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent-Management in support of his
contention that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India no general
directions can be issued for absorption or regularisation, unless the
recruitment was made by following the due selection process of services.
3
(2005) 2 SCC 470
4
(2013) 2 SCC 29
5
(2004) 8 SCC 402
6
(2009) 15 SCC 50
7
(2017) 3 SCC 410
8
(2007) 1 SCC 408
9
2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 764
15
17. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi10.
18. Considered the submissions.
19. The admitted facts are that the workmen in the instant case were
appointed as trainees in 2008, as per the G.O.Ms.No.98, the land ousters are
entitled to employment on a regular basis. However, they were appointed as
trainees in 2008. They have been continued as such since 2008; the nature of
duties assigned to them is that of the regular employees. The continuous
service rendered over the years reflects the perennial nature of the job. The
contention of the petitioner that workmen are trainees within the meaning of
the provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961 is wholly unjustified having regard to
the fact that the petitioners were engaged for operating the mines at
Mangampet Village of Kadapa district, although at the relevant point of time
they may have engaged them as trainees, the said tag cannot be continued
perpetually, if the Management finds them not suitable for the job after
completion of 240 days the it could have dispensed with their services, on the
contrary it continued them and extracted work from the workmen for meagre
salaries. It cannot shun away from its responsibility on the premise that no
selection process was followed at the time of their appointment. The Apex
Court has been repeatedly cautioning the employers against resorting to
unfair trade practices at the expense of the livelihood of workmen/employees.
10
(2006) 4 SCC 1
16
20. In the light of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of
Dharam Singh (referred supra), Vinod Kumar (referred supra), U.P. Junior
High School Council Instructor Welfare Association vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others11, Shripal and another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad12
and the decision of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in
W.P.No.44902 of 2018 and batch dated 17.03.2026. I do not see any
perversity from the order of the Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
award in I.D.No.9 of 2012 dated 23.07.2019.
21. In view of the foregoing, W.P.No.19826 of 2020 is dismissed and
W.P.No.17629 of 2021 is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to
regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of the award in I.D.No.9 of
2012, with effect from the date of the award passed by the Central Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, dated 23.07.2019. The petitioners are entitled to
consequential benefits with effect from the date of regularization.
22. Accordingly, W.P.No.19826 of 2020 is dismissed and W.P.No.17629 of
2021 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Date: 01.05.2026
BSK
11
S.L.P. (C) No.9459 of 2023 and batch dated 04.02.2026
12
Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024 dated 31.01.2025
17
07
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NOS: 17629 OF 2021 & 19826 OF 2020
Date: 01.05.2026
BSK
