Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Mr. Vudugula Venkatesh - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21301 of 2024
Decided On : 19-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S Mohd Abdul Kareem Khan
For the Respondent: GP For Labour
The court emphasized the substantial over formal employment relationships, condemning arbitrary treatment of workers and ensuring compliance with labor laws regarding regularization and benefits, particularly for contract workers with long-term employment.
Headnote:(A) Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970 - Sections 25F and 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Petitioners, having worked continuously for over a decade, requested regularization as permanent employees, citing wrongful denial compared to others regularized - Respondent No.2's inaction and claim of lack of jurisdiction found unconvincing - Court held that principles of fairness and justice were compromised, granting relief to petitioners. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that public authorities must perform duties lawfully, ensuring fair treatment and transparency in employment matters. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners allege wrongful denial of permanent status despite continuous service, alleging contract employment misclassification and violations related to their rights and benefits under various statutes.
Findings of Court:
Petitioners presented a prima facie case of procedural irregularities and discriminatory labor practices, necessitating action from Respondent No.2 to resolve the complaint adequately.
Issues: Were the petitioners unjustly denied regularization while other similar workers were regularized, and did Respondents comply with labor laws regarding retrenchment?
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the necessity for substance over form in employment relationships, declaring that arbitrary actions and discriminatory practices toward employees undermine labor rights.
Result: Writ petition allowed, directing Respondent No.2 to address the complaint and issue appropriate orders within three months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contract workers' regularization and employment status (Para 1) |
| 2. jurisdiction of respondent no. 2 in employment matters (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioners' employment status and company defenses (Para 3) |
| 4. jurisdiction and obligation of labour commissioner (Para 4) |
| 5. legal arguments on esi rights and employment conditions (Para 5 , 6) |
| 6. court's assessment of alleged procedural irregularities (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 7. discrimination and violation of labour laws (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 8. denial of fair process and arbitrary action (Para 13) |
| 9. court's directive for relief and reconsideration (Para 14) |
| 10. closure of miscellaneous applications (Para 15) |
ORDER :
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
The case of petitioners is that they joined the service of Respondent No.3 company through Respondent No. 4 provider of contract labourers, between 2008 and 2014. At the time of their appointment, Respondent No. 4 assured that they would soon be transferred to the rolls of Respondent No. 3 as casual and permanent employees, however, despite several Long-Term Settlements dated 17.08.2006, 20.04.2009, 16.10.2012, 05.10.2018 and 27.04.2022, whereunder other contract workers were regularized as permanent employees of Respondent No. 3, petitioners were not given the opportunity to be considered or transferred. They state that they were in continuous employment and did not receive proper notice or explanation for this denial.
1.1 In addition to this, petitioners’ complaint is that their ESI contributions were not submitted appropriately and no interest was provided for the delay. Despite bringing this to the attention of both Respondents 3 and 4, no corrective action was taken. Therefore, on 13.06.2022, petitioners submitted a complaint to Respondent No.2 explaining that despite more than 10 years of service, their employment had not been made permanent. They also stated that they were compelled to perform the duties of skilled labourers but were paid the wages of a helper, and that they were not given benefits such as gratuity, bonus, casual leaves, or timely wages. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 restricted petitioners' employment and denied them entry to the company premises. On mediation conducted on 26.07.2023, 09.08.2023, and 02.09.2023, Respondent No. 2 ordered Respondent No. 3 to reinstate petitioners' employment and give them a fair opportunity to be considered as permanent employees. However, these orders have not been implemented and they have not been provided with written copies of the orders.
1.2 Subsequently, complaint dated 26.02.2024 was filed seeking reinstatement and permanent employee status, following which, notice dated 15.03.2024 was issued for a joint meeting scheduled for 27.03.2024 at 12 Noon. During this meeting, petitioners submitted that they had been illegally "retrenched" without notice or explanation. In response, the representatives of Respondent No. 3 stated that they were not liable as petitioners were employees of Respondent No. 4, not their own. At this meeting, Respondent No. 2 reportedly stated that principle of res judicata should apply, as the matter had already been resolved by the Order dated 02.09.2023. Respondent No. 2 also reportedly stated that since Respondents 3 and 4 did not have adequate opportunities to employ petitioners, they should seek alternative job options. It was clarified that meeting was for conciliation and that any unsatisfied party could approach a relevant court. Petitioners were then asked to sign a blank paper, which they were told was for the purpose of typing and preparing the order. However, it was only after multiple visits and requests that they were provided with a copy of the Order dated 27.03.2024, four months later which, according to them is "not legible and makes no sense."
2. The case of Respondent No.2 is that their role is that of a Registering and Licensing Issuing Authority under the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970. They acts as a facilitator for the principal emplo
