Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 1090
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
Kodali Vamsi Mohan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 25118 of 2021
Decided On : 28-07-2022
D.V. Sasidhar, for the Appellant; GP and K. Madhava Reddy, SC, for the Respondents
The true test of an employer-employee relationship is whether the worker labours to produce goods or services for the business of another, and whether the worker's livelihood substantially depends on the labour rendered.
Headnote:
TEMPLE EMPLOYEES - PAYMENT OF SALARIES - OUTSOURCING AGENCY - WRIT PETITION - EMPLOYEES APPOINTED ON DAILY WAGE BASIS - SALARIES PAID THROUGH OUTSOURCING AGENCY - ACTION OF TEMPLE AUTHORITIES IN ISSUING MEMO DIRECTING PAYMENT OF SALARIES THROUGH OUTSOURCING AGENCY - HELD TO BE ILLEGAL - EMPLOYEES DIRECTED TO BE PAID SALARIES DIRECTLY FROM TEMPLE ACCOUNTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis in 2013 and worked for 9 years in the temple. Their salaries were initially paid on a daily wage system through a contractor, but from 2016 onwards, they were paid through an outsourcing agency. The petitioners challenged the action of the temple authorities in issuing a memo directing payment of salaries through the outsourcing agency, arguing that there was an employer-employee relationship between them and the temple.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were in fact employees of the temple, and not of the outsourcing agency. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, which held that the true test of an employer-employee relationship is whether the worker labours to produce goods or services for the business of another, and whether the worker's livelihood substantially depends on the labour rendered.
Issues: Whether there was an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the temple.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were employees of the temple, and not of the outsourcing agency. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, which held that the true test of an employer-employee relationship is whether the worker labours to produce goods or services for the business of another, and whether the worker's livelihood substantially depends on the labour rendered.
Final Decision: The court declared the action of the temple authorities in issuing the memo directing payment of salaries through the outsourcing agency to be illegal, and directed the temple authorities to pay the petitioners' salaries directly from temple accounts.
JUDGMENT
Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
'...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the Memo in Rc. No. A1/1102640/11/2018, dated 1.10.2021 directing the 3rd respondent to call for tenders for work outsource from time to time as per the circular in Rc. No. A1/172691/2018, dated 24.9.2018 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents 2 and 3 to pay the remuneration directly to the petitioners from temple accounts by dispensing with the payment through outsourcing agency and pass such other order or orders.......'
2. The case of the petitioners is that initially the petitioners were appointed on voucher payment basis in the establishment of 3rd respondent temple ranging from 2013 to 2016 and they have successfully completed 8 years of service without any remark. At present outsourcing agency is paying Rs. 15,000/- to the drivers, Rs. 12,000/- to the conductors and cleaners. From out of the said amounts, the outsourcing agency deducts the amounts towards EPF, ESI etc. Thereafter the net amount payable is Rs. 13,000/- to the drivers and Rs. 10,000/- to the conductors and Cleaners. As they are unable to eak the livelihood with the meager amounts, they submitted a representation to the Executive Officer requesting to pay the said amounts directly from the temple account instead through 3rd respondent outsourcing agency. Basing on the representation, the then Executive Officer has forwarded a letter in Rc. No. A1/3432/2018 dated 21.1.2019 to the 2nd respondent. It is also stated that the agency is not paying the salaries to the petitioners on time and their salaries are paid once in two or three months, which is causing prejudice to the petitioners.
While things stood thus, the impugned proceedings in Rc. No. A1/11026(40)/11/2018 dated 1.10.2021 were issued by the 2nd respondent to engage the work by calling for tenders and outsource from time to time as per the Circular instructions dated 24.9.201. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representations dated 5.7.2021 and 20.7.2021 to the Chairman of the Trust Board and Minister for Endowments Department respectively. But as on today, no action is taken so far. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the 2nd respondent has issued circular instructions in Rc. No. A1/1726091/2018, dated 24.9.2018 to all the temples that no new appointments shall be made by the temples, even on contract basis under any circumstances and no proposals shall be made for any appointments except in case of specialized/exceptional services. All other required services shall be availed only on outsourcing basis, by obtaining tenders/quotations as the case may be from the eligible agencies. Then the Executive Officer has submitted a report on the presentation of the petitioners to the Commissioner, Endowments Department in Rc. No. A1/3432/2018, dated 21.01.2019 for payment of remuneration directly from temple funds instead of paying the same through Outsourcing Agency. The 2nd respondent has issued Memo dated 1.10.2021 wherein Rc. No. A1/11026(40)/11/2018, it was instructed to strictly adhere to the circular instructions already issued in Rc. No. A1/1726091/2018, dated 24.9.2018.
It is further stated that all the orders issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department are way back to the year 2013 and 2014. To avoid such irregular appointments in the temples, the 2nd respondent has issued comprehensive circular instructions in Rc. No. A1/1726091/2018 dated 24.9.2018 superseding all earlier instructions. The petitioners bei
