COMMON ORDER:

Since all these Writ Petitions arise out of the same issue, they are being heard together and disposed of by this Common Order.

2. Heard Sri V.Hari Haran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Rohit Pogula, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Bank, Smt. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri C.H.Indrasena Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3, in all these Writ Petitions. Perused the material on record.

3. These Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.8595, 8610 and 8614 of 2023 are filed seeking to declare the orders dated 14.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III in S.E.No.11, 10 and 9 of 2010, respectively, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the show cause notice dated 08.03.2023 issued by the respondent No.2.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Bank submits that the petitioner-Bank disengaged the services of the unofficial respondents, who were working as Room Boys on a daily wage basis in the year, 2003, due to the prohibition against engaging daily-wage employees in public services under the provisions of Telangana Regulation of Appointments to the Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for brevity, “Act 2 of 1994”). Aggrieved by the same, the unofficial respondents filed applications before the respondent No.2 under Section 48(1) of the Telangana Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 (for brevity, “the Act 1988”) against the petitioner-Bank and the same were allowed on different dates, directing the petitioner-Bank to reinstate the unofficial respondents into employment immediately along with back wages and benefits. Challenging the same, the petitioner-Bank and another filed appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 48(3) of the Act, 1988 and the same were withdrawn by them on the grounds of some procedural irregularities in dispensing with the services of the unofficial respondents.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Bank further submits that the petitioner-Bank has again issued Termination Letters dated 06.01.2009 to the unofficial respondents stating that their engagement was contrary to Section 3 of the Act 2 of 1994 and disengaged them from services with immediate effect. The unofficial respondents have again filed applications under Section 43(1) of the Act, 1988, challenging the Termination Letters dated 06.01.2009 before the respondent No.2. During the trial, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked on behalf of the unofficial respondents; R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked on behalf of the petitioner-Bank. The respondent No.2, without appreciating the evidence and the documents on record, has allowed the applications by passing the impugned orders dated 14.11.2022, directing the petitioner-Bank to reinstate the unofficial respondents into employment with continuity of service with full back wages and other attendant benefits.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Bank further submits that in lieu of the overriding effect of the Act No.2 of 1994 with other laws, the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 are without any authority or jurisdiction and the same are liable to be set aside. As per Section 3 of the Act No.2 of 1994, there is a prohibition for appointment of a person in any public service to any post as a daily wage employee and as the petitioner-Bank comes within the definition of ‘Public Service’ under Section 2(vi)(e) of the Act No.2 of 1994, the respondent No.2 ought to have rejected the applications of the unofficial respondents at threshold, but instead entertained the applications and allowed the same. He further submits that the appointment of the unofficial respondents was neither with the prior permission of the competent authority nor sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He submits that the unofficial respondents in their initial applications and later applica