HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS Vs. M RANGAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Hindustan Machines Tools Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'HMT' Ltd.), represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director at Bangalore and the General Manager and the Joint General Manager (Personnel Incharge) at Bali Nagar, Hyderabad have filed these appeals by special leave challenging the judgment dated 9th November, 1995 of the single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 3425 of 1995, which was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of that Court by its Order dated 28th December, 1995 in Writ Appeal No. 1710 of 1995.

(2.) HMT Ltd. is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India which, as described by the appellants, has grown into a multi-unit, multi-product, multi-technology Company having four business groups and 20 manufacturing units spread over ten different States in the country. The Company engages casual workers on daily rate basis depending upon the need and exigencies of work. Forty two such casual workers engaged in the unit of the Company at Hyderabad filed the Writ Petition with a prayer to issue a Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of A Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise their services in their respective posts from the date of the initial appointment with all consequential benefits forthwith. The appellants were arrayed as respondents in the writ petition.

(3.) The writ petitioners alleged inter alia that they have been working as helpers and skilled workers in different departments of the Company for long period of 3 to 10 years continuously. Their engagement has been treated as casual labour on daily wage basis. Some of them have undergone training course (I.T.I.) as apprentice under the Company. On successful completion of the said training the incumbents were given temporary appointments which continued till the date of filing of the writ petition. The writ petitioners further alleged that though they had been discharging duties similar to those of regular employees of the Company, they were denied the benefit of regularisation of service and other service benefits on that basis. Under such compelling circumstances the casual workers filed the writ petition seeking the reliefs noted above. During pendency of the writ petition, considering the application filed by the writ petitioners seeking interim relief, the High Court passed the order for maintenance of status quo as on the date of the order to ensure continuance of the writ petitioners in service.