Gist :>Head Note:? Cases referred: 1) (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 2) 2014 AIR SCW 6387 3) Civil Appeal No.2974 of 2016, dated 11.09.2025 4) (2013) 5 SCC 136 5) (2014) 7 SCC 177

W.P.No.31689 OF 2010

Between:# APSRTC and another... Petitioners Vs. M.Pochaiah and others... Respondents

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 16.03.2026

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

____________________________________

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.31689 of 2010

Date : 16.03.2026

Between :

APSRTC, Musheerabad and another... Petitioners and M.Pochaiah and others... Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the Corporation aggrieved by the Award dated 30.06.2010 passed in I.D.No.67 of 2006 by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Labour Court’).

During the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent died, and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.3 to 5.

Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The petitioners’ Corporation has entrusted the works of sweeping and cleaning the bus station to the Contractor on a contract basis by way of calling tenders, and that the 1st respondent was engaged by the Contractor and was allotted the work of night watchman-cum- sweeper. The 1st respondent’s services were utilized at Siddipet bus station to sweep buses arriving at the said bus station, and to sweep the entire bus station. He attended the duty from 6.00 a.m. to 5 p.m. and also worked in the 2nd petitioner’s office. The 1st respondent was not an employee of the petitioners’ Corporation. The name of the 1st respondent was not found in the salary bill of employees of Siddipet Depot, and he did not have any staff number allotted by the petitioners’ Corporation. The 2nd petitioner orally terminated the 1st respondent from service w.e.f. 01.11.1992.

(b) The 1st respondent submitted a representation to the Hon’ble Minister for Labour and Employment, Government of India requesting to regularize his services and the Hon’ble Minister gave reply on 05.06.2006 stating that his services cannot be regularized as he was not appointed by the petitioners’ Corporation and he worked under a contractor maintaining the works of sweeping and cleaning at Old Bus Station, Siddipet. Questioning the same, the 1st respondent filed I.D.No.67 of 2006, and the Labour Court, vide Award dated 30.06.2010, while setting aside the removal order dated 01.11.1992, directed the petitioners’ Corporation to reinstate the 1st respondent into service, but without back wages and continuity of service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners’ Corporation filed the present writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1st respondent was not engaged by the petitioners’ Corporation, and it has not allotted any staff number to the 1st respondent. There is no employee-employer relationship between the 1st respondent and the petitioners. There is no oral employment and oral termination by the petitioners.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the Hon’ble Minister for Labour and Employment, Government of India, rightly rejected the case of the 1st respondent for regularization. There is no designation/category as Night Watchmen in the petitioners’ Corporation, as claimed by the 1st respondent. The Award of the Labour Court is not in accordance with the law and the facts of the case. The Labour Court erred in entertaining the claim after a lapse of 14 years. The Labour Court, without considering the submissions made by the petitioners, erroneously passed the impugned Award. Therefore, ap