IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that contract laborers engaged in perennial work are entitled to regularization of services, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment among similarly situated employees.

ORDER :

HARINATH N., J.

The petitioners in the batch of writ petitions are aggrieved by the in-action of the respondents in not regularizing their services and have sought for regularization of their services. As the grievance of the petitioners is common and seek directions to the respondents for regularization of their services. A common order is passed.

2. For the sake of brevity, the case of the petitioners is discussed separately. The 1st petitioner in WP.No.15272 of 2010 is working as Watchman – Cum – Security Guard in T.L.C. Stores, AP Transco, Kadapa since 22.02.1993. The 2nd petitioner is working as Watchman – Cum – Security Guard since 01.05.1992. The 3rd petitioner is working as Watchman – Cum – Security Guard since 01.07.1996. All the petitioners were subsequently treated as working under a Contractor from the year 2003-2004. The petitioners claim that their services were routed through a contractor continuously without any interruption. Though, the contractors kept changing year on year, the nature of work of the petitioners did not change, but continued with meager amount of wages. There is a disparity in wages in so far as basic wage drawn by a watchman whose services are regularized and the consolidated wage paid to the petitioners.

3. The petitioners claim that, even in the absence of contractors the services of the petitioners were continued. After issuing GOMs.No.492, dated 08.07.1980 a memo dated 12.12.1980 was issued by the Secretary, APSEB requesting all the Superintendent Engineers to furnish the information regarding the establishment employing less than 20 workman under the Board engaged in such abolished category of employment. The Chief Engineers and Superintendent Engineers were directed not to engage contract labour in the 33 abolished categories. The petitioners submit that six of the workman who were similarly placed as that of the petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking their regularization. This Court in WA.No.1478 of 1999 had directed the respondents therein to consider the cases of the appellants in writ appeal for absorption and regularization as watch and ward of Security Guards. The SLP.No.2392 of 2000 filed by the respondents was dismissed. Ultimately, the services of the appellants in the writ appeal were regularized vide proceedings dated 08.02.2010. The representation of the petitioners submitted in the month of May, 2010 seeking regularization of their services has not yielded any result. As such the writ petition is filed.

4. The 1st petitioner in WP.No.15794 of 2010 was engaged as a Driver in the month of February, 1991 and from 01.04.1999 he is treated as a Contract Labourer. The other petitioners are engaged as drivers on different dates, however, are treated as Contract Labourers working under a Contractor since the year 1999.

5. The petitioners claim that, they are entitled for regularization of their services in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. The petitioners claim that some of the drivers working with the respondents have sought for regularization and filed WP.No.22170 of 1997 and this Court vide order dated 08.11.2000 directed the respondents to consider appoint the petitioners in the existing vacancies or in the future vacancies. The Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.181 of 2001, dated 22.06.2004 confirmed the order of learned Single Judge. The petitioners submit that six of the workman who were similarly placed as that of the petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking their regularization. This Court in WA.No.1478 of 1999 had directed the respondents therein to consider the cases of the appellants in writ appeal for absorption and regularization as watch and ward of Security Guards. The SLP.No.2392 of 2000 filed by the respondents was dismissed. Ultimately, the services of the appellants in the writ appeal were regularized vide proceedings dated 08.02.2010.

6. The petitioners submit that an agreement dated 29.08.2010 was en