APHC010391852002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-9 [3506]

AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18006 of 2002 The Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum ...Petitioner Corporation Limited, Secunderabad Vs.

Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Guntur and two ...Respondent(s)

others **********

Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s): Smt.V UMA DEVI, K SRINIVASA MURTHY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.VANAM VISHWANATHAM CORAM : S RI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 13th November 2025

ORDER:

The present writ petition challenges the legality or otherwise of Award, dated 26.09.2001, passed in I.D.No.15 of 1995 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, and consequently, to quash the same.

2. Petitioner is Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (“Corporation”), which is undertaking of Government of India. The 2^nd respondent claiming to be working as Scavenger with the petitioner Corporation, which was eventually prohibited under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (for short, “the CLRA Act”), instituted I.D.No.15 of 1995 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short, “the I.D. Act”), questioning her termination from service. She stated to have been terminated from service on 15.06.1995. The 2^nd respondent laid the claim that she was initially engaged by the contractor, who was in turn, engaged by the petitioner Corporation for the purpose of scavenging as Sweeper and that she has been discharging duties accordingly. After putting in considerable period of service, she was abruptly removed from service, and that too by oral intimation, and therefore, she preferred the I.D. seeking for reinstatement into service with all benefits.

3. The claim came to be contested by the petitioner Corporation by filing counter-affidavit, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner Corporation being an entity of Central Government was only susceptible to the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal, but not, Labour Court, that the notification issued by the State Government under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act would not apply to the Central Government Undertakings and further, there was no employer and employee relationship between the worker and the Corporation, as admittedly, she was engaged by the contractor and there cannot be an automatic relationship between them.

4. The Labour Court, after considering the respective pleas and also the evidence that was adduced, both oral and documentary, ultimately allowed the claim by directing the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the worker into service with all benefits i.e., full back wages. Challenging the aforesaid Award, dated 26.09.2001, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Despite service of notice, none appears for 2^nd respondent – worker. The writ petition has been dismissed for default insofar as the

3^rd respondent is concerned.

6. Heard Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation and none appeared for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation mainly contended that inasmuch as the 2^nd respondent worker claimed to be employed with the petitioner Corporation, that the Corporation being an entity/undertaking of Central Government, the notification, in particular, G.O.Ms.No.287, dated 07.05.1981, issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, purportedly exercising powers under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting the employment of contract labour, in particular, the sweeping activity would not be applicable and even otherwise similar notification, dated 09.12.1976, issued by Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, since has been held to be invalid by Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, [(2001) 7 SCC 1], the Award passed by the Labour Court is unsustainable. She further contended that mere issuance of an omnibus notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, even by State