B SATYANARAYANA Vs. TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions which substantially arise for consideration and decision in all these Writ Petitions are similar. Hence, these writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Although the petitioners in this batch of Writ Petitions prayed for reliefsdifferently, what the petitioners essentially pray is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the administration of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (for short 'the TTD') either to continue their services or to regularise their services in the posts held by them before termination of their services. Let the Court first state the undisputed facts. The petitioners came to be engaged in the establishment of the T.T.D. (Kalyana Mandapam) either as watchmen or scavengers or attenders or Sweepers, either on daily-wage basis or casual or temporary basis. It is an admitted position that when the services of the petitioners were engaged during the years 1988,1989 and 1990, their initial engagement was not against any existing vacancies or sanctioned posts. In other words, their engagements were extra-cadre in nature. According to the management, the services of the petitioners were disengaged with effect from 3-9-1996, whereas according to some of the petitioners, their services were continued till December, 1997. This controversy need not be gone into by the Court for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions. In the case of some petitioners, in pursuance of the earlier direction issued by this Court to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularisation in terms of law and relevant regulations, their cases were considered and the same were rejected. The said action was also assailed in W.P.No. 23553 of 1998.

(3.) Assailing the validity of the action of the administration of the TTD,in terminating the services of the petitioners, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the action smacks of arbitrariness and was in violation of principles of natural justice; that the petitioners are workmen within the meaning of that term as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') and since they had put in more than 240 days of service before termination of their services, the administration of the T.T.D. ought to have complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F or 25-N of the Act as the case may be, and that since admittedly that was not done, the action of the administration in terminating the services of the petitioners should be held to be illegal and invalid. The learned Counsel would also point out that in some cases, the administration itself chose to regularise the services of the similarly situated daily-wagers and casuals and the refusal to extend the same treatment to the petitioners tantamounts to an invidious discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would also contend that the plea taken by the administration of the T.T.D. in ihe counter that there was no need to continue the services of the petitioners was apparently an incorrect statement, and the very fact that they thought it necessary to entrust the same work to contractors in the month of February, 1998 shows that there was need for the services of the petitioners.