Establishing an employer-employee relationship is essential for regularization claims; contract-based employment does not create inherent rights to permanent status.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Anup Koushik, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jayanthi, S.C. Sekhar, learned counsels for the respondents in all the writ appeals.

2. Writ Appeal Nos.310, 311, 312 and 313 of 2024 have been filed challenging the common judgment dated 31.01.2024, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.15794 of 2010, W.P.No.32917 of 2010, W.P.No.15272 of 2010, W.P.No.33147 of 2010 respectively.

3. The challenge is on the same ground and same arguments have been advanced by both the sides as such all these writ appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

I. Facts Writ Petitioners’ case:

W.A.No.310 of 2024:

4. The case of the writ petitioners of this writ appeal briefly stated was as under:-

4.1. The 1st writ petitioner P. Nagendra was engaged as driver in the respondents Industry in the month of February, 1991 and since then he has been continuously, un-interruptedly without any break, working in the respondents industry. From 26.02.1991 to 1996 he was directly engaged without any middle man. For about three years the petitioner No.1 has been treated as contract worker. For every year the so-called contractors have been changing but the writ petitioner No.1 P. Nagendra was continued in his job without any break as he was. The 1st petitioner possessed the driving license for heavy goods vehicle and his education qualification is 10th class and passing I.T.I. Electricals. He was available for 24 hours without any break in a week.

4.2. The 2nd petitioner M. Nagarjuna was engaged as driver in the year 1986 in the office of the S.E./T.L.C/A.P. Transco, Kadapa. From 1986 to 1999 the 2nd petitioner M. Nagarjuna was directly engaged by the respondents Industry without any middle man. Then, since 1999 the 2nd petitioner has been treated as contract worker. He is in possession of Light Motor Vehicle Driving License and his qualification is 9th pass. The 2nd petitioner was available for 24 hours without any break in a week.

4.3. The 3rd petitioner M. Krishnaih was engaged by the respondent industry in the year 1985. From 1.1.1985 to 31.03.1999 he was directly engaged and worked under the supervision and control of the officers of respondent industry. Since 1.4.1999 he has been treated as contract worker. His qualification is 9th class and he is in possession of heavy goods vehicle driving licence.

4.4. The 4th petitioner K. Nagabhushanam was engaged as a driver by the respondents industry on 01.08.1991 and from 1.8.1991 to 31.3.1999 he directly worked under the supervision and control of officers of respondents industry without any middle man. From 1999 he has been treated as contract worker. His qualification is 9th class and he is in possession of heavy goods vehicle driving license.

4.5. The 5th petitioner L. Seenaiah was engaged by the respondent industry as driver in the year 1992 and from 1992 to 31.3.1999 he worked in the respondent industry without any middle man. From 1.4.1999 he has been treated as contract worker. His qualification is passing 10th class and he is in possession of heavy goods vehicle driving license.

4.6. The 6th petitioner B. David Sudhama Rao was engaged by the respondents industry as driver on 27.10.1989. From 27.10.1989 to 31.03.1999 he worked in the respondent industry without any middle man. From 1.4.1999 he was treated as contract worker. His qualification is intermediate pass and he is in po