SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17960

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D Ramesh, J
Maddiguntla Mallikarjuna – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 12380/2025|IA NO: 1 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gouthami Surapareddy, Sumanth Amirapu, R Annapurna
For the Respondents: GP For Services I

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable for contractual employees challenging termination when the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a disputed question of fact, requiring adjudication by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal based on detailed evidence.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maintainability of writ petition - Contractual employees engaged through contractors - Termination of service - Existence of employer-employee relationship is a question of fact requiring evidence and investigation - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not an appropriate remedy for such disputes - Parties granted liberty to approach the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. (Paras 4, 6, 7 and 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, employed as contract Shift Operators by the respondents, challenged the oral termination of their services without notice, alleging violation of natural justice and Constitutional rights, and sought a direction to continue their services.

Findings of Court:
Citing Division Bench precedents, the Court found that there is no privity of contract between the official respondents and the petitioners. The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a question of fact requiring evidence beyond the scope of a writ petition.

Issues: Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable for contractual employees seeking reinstatement or challenging termination when a contractor-principal employer structure is involved.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relationship of employer and employee is disputed or requires evidence regarding the legitimacy of the contract system, the High Court under Article 226 is not the appropriate forum. Such factual disputes are to be adjudicated by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.

Result: Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach the competent Labour Court.

Table of Content
1. nature of the writ petition and background of the contractual workers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. analysis of privity of contract and the appropriate forum for resolving factual employment disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. final outcome directing petitioners to the appropriate legal forum. (Para 8)

Between:

1. MADDIGUNTLA MALLIKARJUNA, S/O. MADDIGUNTLAYEDUKONDALU AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 4-102-5A, MATUKU MALLI, KANAMARLAPUDI, SAVALYAPURAM, SAVALYAPURAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. NAKKA KRISHNA REDDY,, S/O. HUSSEN REDDY, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC.SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 3-43, NEELAGANGAVARAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. VADITHE LINGA NAIK,, S/O. SURYA NAIK, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC.SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 4-95, GANGUPALLI THANDA, BOLLAPALLE MADAL, GUNTUPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

4. KOPELA CHANDRA SEKHAR,, S/O. RAJA RATNAM AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC.SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 5-136,KOTCHERLA PO, KOTCHERLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

5. NAKKA PITCHI REDDY,, S/O GOVINDA REDDY, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 1-132/A, CHATRAGADDAPADU, VINUKONDA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

6. NEELABOINA VENKATESH,, S/O MANNEIAH AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 2-37 RAVULAPURAM, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

7. UYYALA THIRUPATHI RAO,, S/O UYYALA VEERANJANEYULU, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 4-394, UYYALA VEERANJANEYULU, SAVALYAPURAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

8. KRISTIPATI ANJI REDDY,, S/O KOTIREDDY, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 2-14A, RAMALAYAVEEDI, BOLLPALLI BOLLAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

9. BOGIREDDY NAGARJUNA,, S/O BOGIREDDY SRINIVASA REDDY AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 5-135, AGNIGUNDALA, UDIJARLA, IPURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

10. RELLA KONDALU,, S/O VEERAIAH, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 60-2, NEAR CHURCH, AYYANNAPALEM, MARRIPALEM GUNTUR DISTRICT.

11. DARAM ANJIREDDY,, S/O. DARAM HANIMIREDDY AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 3-63, MAIN CENTER, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, MELLAVAGU, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

12. BHUKYA RAMESH,, S/O. SAKRI BAI AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 1-5, PALAKURU THANDA, GUTLAPALLE BOLLAPALLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

13. MUDAVATH KANTHARAO NAIK,, S/O BALAJI NAIK, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 2-22, KANUMALACHERUVU, BOLLAPALLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED, (APCPDCL) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, BESIDES GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, ITI ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATIONS, ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED (APCPDCL), OPERATION CIRCLE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATIONS, ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED, (APCPDCL), NARASARAOPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT.

5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATIONS, ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED (APCPDCL), VINUKONDA, PALNADU DISTRICT.

6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OPERATIONS, ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED (APCPDCL), REMIDICHERLA, PALNADU DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the respondents particularly the respondent no's 4 to 6 without any notice orally terminated/discontinued the petitioners' service as Shift Operators and replace the another employees in the place of petitioners as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discrimination, contrary to orders of this Hon'ble Court and violation Principles of Natural Justice apart from violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Shift Operators and pass

IA NO: 1 OF

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top