Since the issues involved in all these four writ petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

W.P.Nos.11507 of 2001, 6553 of 2006, 7108 of 2006 and 7109 of 2006 have been filed challenging the orders dated 26.02.2001, 13.09.2005, 13.09.2005 and 13.09.2005 respectively, passed in I.D.Nos.8 of 1997, 96 of 2002, 97 of 2002 and 98 of 2002 respectively, by the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Warangal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

In W.P.No.11507 of 2001, The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Khammam – 400 KV Sub Station, Budidampadu, Khammam, represented by its Manager, Khammam, is the petitioner and 17 workers represented by the President, Khammam District Security Personnel Union, Yellandu is the first respondent, M/s. Private Eye Security Services, Secunderabad is the second respondent and the Tribunal is the third respondent. In the other three writ petitions, M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India, Khamma represented by its Executive Director, Secunderabad is the petitioner and the workers and the Tribunal are the respondents.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their array before the Tribunal in I.D.No.8 of 1997 and the facts, as narrated in W.P.No.11507 of 2001 will be referred.

The brief facts of the case are that the workmen were appointed as Security Guards in the first respondent Corporation in the year 1990 orally and since then, they worked continuously till their services were orally terminated on 01.12.1995. Their further case is that their termination is in violation of Section 25 (f), 25(g) and 25(h) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the I.D. Act’). They were neither issued any notice nor paid any retrenchment compensation at the time of their termination. It is also their case that they have no knowledge about the agreement entered into between the first respondent corporation and the second respondent. It is also their case that they could not secure any alternative employment since the date of their termination.

The specific case of the first respondent corporation is that the first respondent is a Government of India undertaking and it entered into an agreement with the second respondent to provide security services to the first respondent corporation from 01.12.1994 to 30.11.1995 on contract basis and the contract period expired on 30.11.1995 and that there is no employer-employee relationship between the first respondent corporation and the petitioners (workmen). Then the 17 workers of the petitioner Union filed P.W.No.12 of 1995 before the authority under Payment of Wages Act, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam, claiming arrears of wages and in the said petition, showing the second respondent – M/s. Private Eye Security Services as their employer. Then, the authority under Payment of Wages Act recognised the relationship between the petitioners and the second respondent security services as employees - employer and directed for payment of arrears by the second respondent – security services only.

The second respondent also filed a counter taking the same stand as taken by the first respondent.

On behalf of the workmen, W.W.1 and W.W.2 were examined and Exs.M.1 to 75 were marked. On behalf of the Management, M.Ws.1 and 2 were marked and no documentary evidence has been adduced.

The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the second respondent engaged the workmen and deputed them as contract labour to work in the unit of the first respondent Corporation as security guards and their services were discontinued with effect from 1-12-1995. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the nature of work done by the workmen is of perennial in nature and the first respondent corporation cannot engage the workmen through contractor when the work is perennial in nature. The Tribunal