AI Insights
The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by workers of the Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool, challenging their termination notices issued by respondent No.4. The petitions argued that the terminations were in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires certain procedures to be followed for retrenchment. The court examined whether the writ petitions could be maintained against respondent No.4, considering its nature as a private workers pool and not a statutory body. The court concluded that a writ of mandamus could not be issued against respondent No.4 as it did not fulfill the criteria of a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803770 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
12-07-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"WRIT PETITION NO: 15762 OF 2017 HU PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos: 15762 of 2017.16652 and 16846 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) . WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY . TWO THOUSAND ANO TWENTY THREE 4. S. Venkata Ramana, s/o Appalanaidu Aged about 44 years Ravalanima Palem, Antalcapalli SabBavaram, Visakhapatnam.' • 5. P. Subbi Red^y, S/o Rama Reddy (late) Aged about 45 years D.No.23-10-27, Subbigalli Street, Kurupam mai-ket, Visalchapatnam. 6. 3. Srinivas Rao s/o late Raju Aged about 46 years (D.No.70-19-101, B.C.colony, Kalcinada) KMSM Colony, Gnanapuram, Visalchapatnam. 7. Srinivasa Rao s/o late Appalaswami Aged about 48 years D.No.30-4-6/A, IQishna Gardens, Dabagardens, Visalchapatnam. S. Kodugudla Itikshmi Narayana s/o Solumu Aged about 47 years p.No.1-62, Ramalayam Temple, Pendurthy, Visalcliapatnani. BETWEEN: L B. Sankara Rao S/o Bangarayya Aged about 45 years D.No.4-64, Santhapalem, Kothavalasa M, Denderu, Vizianagaram 2. K.V. Ramakrislma Rao, S/O Ramulu Aged about 44 years D.No.57-24-93/3, Thummadapalem, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. 3. D. Rambabu, s/o Appa Rao . Aged about 43 years D.No.40-1 -16/48/2, Durgadevi Temple, kailasapuram Visalchapatnam. n ipuram, : • - ■ about 44 years ®®\"divanipalem, Kanithi Road, Gajuwaka. Visakhapatnaiji 16. P. Venkata Ramana, Aged about 43 years Rampuram, Sujatanagar Pendurty 17. E. Simhachalani, S/o Ramulu 18. R. Sanyasi Rao, s/o Sanyasi Aged about 47 years l5.No 61-4-36/A, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. 19. T. Kanaka Raju, s/o chinnodu Aged about 46 years D.No. 14-27 ?r^ikaNagar,Kailasapuram, ’ Sahgrampuram, Visaldiapatnam. , 20. G. Avatharam, S/o Demudu ! about 48 years D.No.2-391 Ravalammapalem, Sabbavaiam ’ Antalcapalli Visaldiapatnam. ’ 9. Saripalli Rambabu s/o Nookalu Aged about 44 years D.No.30-95-52 Appikonda, Vadlapudi, Visakhapatn^. 10. Tokada Srinivasa Rao S/o Sanyasi Rao late Aged about 45 years D.No.2-57 yedulla narava Post, Ward.No.57 Sabbavaram, Visaldiapatnam. ’ U.K. Eswara Rao, s/o Demudu Aged about 47 years D.No.4-13 ^utbapuram Sabbavaram, ’ Visakhapatnam. 12. S.s.N. Sairam, S/o Kantha Rao late Aged about 46 years D.No.31-44-60 Dwaramvari Veedhi, Visaldiapatnan^. Pyditalli late Aged about 43 years D.No 1-33 Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam. ’ Aged about 45 years ? ^®‘^“^®idupaleni, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam. 3 >: 22. Maude Venu, S/o Simhachalam Aged about 46 years Dharmanagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. 23. Y. David Paul, S/o Y. Paul Aged al^ut 44 years D.No. 14-463, L^shminagar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. 21. G. Esw^a Rao, S/o Sanyasi Rao Aged about 45 years D.No.26-86-8, .Woodyard Street, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam. • 27. Ganagalla Dasu, S/o Yerakayya Aged about 45 years D.No.32-32-181, kobbarithota, SVP nagar, Visakhapatnam 28. Ganga Appa Rao, s/o Ramulu Aged about 44 years D.No. 1-1-126, Plot No.81, Indranagar, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam. 29. Maturi Kanakalu, s/o Demudu Aged about 45 years Narayanamma Palem, Tekkalipalem, Sabhavaram, Visakhapatnam. 30. Nollu Eswara Rao, s/o Muthayalu Aged about years D.No. .16-15-20/1, Kotha jalari Peta, Visakhapatnam. 31. Babbari-Eswara Rao, S/o Pydiyya about 46 years D.NO.9-41-41/B, Pitapuram Coolony,Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. 24. Ummadi Rama Rao, S/o Nallayya Aged about years K.Dibbadapalem, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam 25. Kona Appala Raju Aged about 45 years D.No.60-l-34/B, Prakash nagar, Malkapuram Post, Visakhapatnam. !; 26. Kadavala Raju, s/o Gangaraju Aged about 46 years D.No.5.9-11-4, Magarala Street, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. I 32. Kola Nageswara Rao S/o Appa Rao, Aged about 48 years D.NO.60-33-170/B, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. 33. Panchada Kondala Rao s/o Pedda Appala naidu Aged about 42 years D.No.9-124, chinnayyapalem, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam. • 34. Mukala Srinivasa Rao, s/o Appala Naidu Aged about 45 years D.No.2-37/A, Tavvavanipalem, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam. 35. Vadrangi Ramesh, s/o Anhaneyulu Aged about 46 years D.No.34-11-24, Gnanpuram, Waitair R.S. ,Visakhapatnam 36. Nakka Nookaraju s/o Appalanaidu Aged about 44 years D.No.7-100, Akkireddypalem, Pendurty, Visa^apatnam. 43. T. Somu Babu S/o Pydiyya Aged about 47 years D.No.21-25-5, I town Area, Town Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam. I » 38. Madapajla Raju, S/o Appala naidu Aged about 46 years D.No.1-82, Gandhigudem, Visakhapatnam. 41. Gorle Srinivasa Rao, s/o simhadri Aged about 45 years Saripilli, Near Koneru, Pendurty, Visakhapatnam . 42. Kodigudla Venkata Ramana s/o Somulu Aged about 44 years D.No.1-32, jangalapalem, Saripilli, Pendurty, Visakhapatnam 39. Visalapu Appala Naidu s/o Sambu naidu Aged about 45 years D.No.2-50, Tavvavanipalem, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam. ! 40. Chittimi Reddy Demudu s/o Demudu Aged about 46 years Ravalammapalem, Antakapalli, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam 37. Pediboina naga Malleswara Rao s/o Late Basavayya Aged about 47 years D.No .23-9-1/4, Kajappanaidu Street, ■ Kurpam market, Visakhapatnam. & • i 52. G. Eswara Rao, s/o satyam Aged about 42 years D.N0.-3-4, Saripilli, P^ndurthy, Visakhapatn^. p 44. S. Ramesh. S/o Musalayya Aged about 50 years D.No.61-5-54(2), venkannapalem, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam Srinivasa Rao, S/o s. Guruvulu Aged about 45 years D.No .,2- 12-16, paindorapeta, AVN College, Visakhapatnam. 54. Ch. Appa Rao, s/o Masenu Late Aged about 48 years D.No.25-41-18/9, Chilakapeta, Lalcshmitalkies, Visakhapatnam. 55. S. Bangaru Naidu, S/O Gogunaidu ’ about 48 years Ravalammapalem Sabbavaram, Visaldiapatnam- 53. P. Krishna, S/o Appala Naidu Aged about 46 years Chinnayyapalem, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam 45. K. Srinivasa-Rao, s/o Sreeramulu Aged about 48 years D.No.5-5, Gopala Nagar, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam. 46. K. Appala Sriramutu, S/o K. Krishna Aged about 46 years D.No.10-154, Adireddypalem, Sabbavaram, Visaldiapatnam. 49. G. Siva Appa Rao, S/o Kannayya Aged about 44 years Jangalapalem, Pendurthy, Visaldiapatnam. . 50. B. Ramana S/o Pydi thalli Aged about 42 yews Amruthapuram, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam. 51. S. Rama Rao, s/o Appanna Aged about 48 years D.No. 1-3-80, Mallunaidupalem, Sabbavaram^ Visakhapatnam. 48. R. Mutyala Naidu, S/o Pydam Naidu Aged about 46 years Ravalammapalem, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam. -G>- I 56. M. Suryanarayana, S/o Demudu Aged about 46 years D.No.36-94-256, Ambedkar Estate, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. 62. Guri Satyam S/o Simhachalam Aged about 46 years Mogalipuram, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam 63. Yerra Appala Raju s/o Demudu Aged about 44 years D.N0.-2-115/2, Pinapple Colony, Pendurty, Visakhapatnam 64. Konada China Appa Rao, s/o yellayya Aged about 46 years A.V.N. College, Visakhapatnam. 57. N. Appa Rao, s/o Simhachalam Aged about 44 years D.Nb.25-6-1, Palavari Veedhi, Reeding Room, Visakhapatnam. 58. N. Satyanarayana s/o Late N. Krishnamma Aged about 42 years D.Nb.39-30-45, Gandhinagar, Near Venkateswaraswami Temple, MaiTipalem,Visakhapatnam. 59. K. Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 44 years D.No.40-2-403, santhinagar, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam 60. K. Eswara Rao S/o Yerrayya Reddy Aged about 45 years Mogalipuram, Mallu Naidu Palem/Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam. 61. Jami Appa rao, S/o Demudu Aged about 45 years D.No.4-82, saripalli, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam. 65. U. Yelia Rao, s/o U. Appanna Aged about 45 years D.No.39-26-9, Appayyanagar, Visakhapatnam. 66. Seela Chinna Rao, s/o Appala narasayya Aged about 45 years D.No.43-1-4/1, Chakalipeta, Rly.New Colony, Visakhapatnam. - ! I i i i 75. Kaligi Sannibabu, s/o Simhachalam Aged about 46 years Dn.3-74, Seuripilli, Pendurty, Visakhapatnam 77. K. Yellaji, S/o Jaggayya Aged about 44 years D.No.33-5-25/34, Nereila Koneru, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam. 72. Amara Appa-Rao, S/o Rama Swami AgeH about 42 years D.No .32-32t 30, Kobbarithota, SVP nagar, Visakhapatnam. 70. Thirri Srinu, s/o Chinna Chenchulu . Aged about 48 years D.No.209-9, Aripaka, Sabbavarun, Visakhapatnam. €7. Nekkala Sankara Rao, S/o Kanna Babu (late) Aged about 46 years D.No.2-71., Rampuram, Visakhapatnam. 71. Janji Appa Rao, s/b late Samba Aged about 46 years ' D.No.2-98, Saripilli, Pendurty, ■ Visakhapatnam. 68. Madha Dhana Raju S/o Danayya Aged -about 44 years D.No.40-60-16/1, Tikkavanipalem, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. 69. Moyya Nooka Raju, s/o late Markendeswara j^ap, . ;. / Aged about 47 years D.N6.27-17/8, Ayodhyanagar, Madhurawada, Visaldiapatnam Ih. N. nageswara 1^6, s/o Kalayanam Aged about 45 years D.No.41-39, chilakapeta, lakshmitalkies Road, Visakhapatnam. 74. Dooda Bangarayya s/o- Ammoru Aged about 48 years. D.No.25-41-76, Chilakapeta, . laxmi Talkies, Visakhapatnam. 73. Gorle Suribabu, s/o Guruvu naidu Aged about 46 years D.No.3-20, Saripiili, Pendurty, Visakhapatnam • i ! 87. R. Babu Rao S/q Demudu Aged about 45 years D.No.26-5-334, Prasad Gardens, old bus Stand, Visakhapatnam. 88. S. Srinivasa Rao s/o Appala Naidu Aged about 44 years D.No .60-35-3, Prakash colony, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. \"78. Ghana Raju, s/o Ganayya Aged about 46 years G.No.32-30-23, SVP Nagar, Kobb^ithota, Visalchapatnam 19. K. Gemudu, S/o Simhachalam Aged about 44 years G.No. 12-24, Gorlevanipalem, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam.’ 80. Gantipilli Gasu, S/o Sathiraju Aged about 45 years G.No.40-1-24/109, Madhuranagar, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam 81. Surada Ellaji Rao, s/o Lakshmayya late Aged about 47 years G.No .23-8-1 8, Old Post Office, Visakhapatnam. 82. T. Prasad, s/o Nageswara Rao Aged about 44 years O.No.37-11, Public School, Patabhireddy Thota Visakhapatnam. 83. Ouda Sriniv^a Rao s/o Krishnamma Aged about 46 years G.No. 1-21-15, Adarshnagar, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam’. Eswara Rao s/o Nookaraju (late) Aged about 43 years G.No.57-27-25, Sriramnagar, Old ITI Jn., Visakhapatnam 85. Buradha Appa Rao, -s/o Chinna naidu late Aged about 45 years G.No .24-2-146, Thomson Street Old post office, Visakhapatnam.’ 86. Gujji Ganapathi s/o jogulu Aged about 46 years O.No.32-1-196/1, Atchiyyammapeta, Visakhapatnam. I i I BT iiiMI i ! 1- 91. T. Onumulu S/o Appanna late Aged about 45 years D.No.26-7-36/B, Pandaveedhi, old Bus Stand, Visaldiapatnam. 98. leketi Appa Rao, S/o Appa Rao (late)' - Aged about 48 years P.l K.V. Appa fao S/p Ramu Naidu Aged Major, Token No.2334, Residing At D.No.26-32-25, Ramakrisha Veedhi, . Visakhapatnam P. Narasiiriha Murthy S/o Pydithalli Aged Major, Token No.2341, Residing At Tekkalipalerti, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam G. Suryanarayana S/o Aldcayya Aged Major, Token No.2440, Residing At D.No.7-181-, Ravalammapaiem, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam. A. Srinivas Rao S/O Late Appa Rao Aged Major, Token No.2454, Residing At D.No.36-76-1, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam V. Tata Rao, s/o Munnayya • Aged Major, Token No.2366, Residing At D.NO133-20-86/1, Chaluvathota, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam M. Chittibabu, S/o Appa.Rao Aged Major, Token No.2374, Residing At .. Ashoknagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam S. Demudu, S/o Late Somulu Aged Major, Token No.2382, Residing At D.No, 14-16, Sramika nagdr, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam. DVS Salyanarayana, S/o Sanyasi Aged Major, Token No.2428 Residing A D.No.26-6-17,Prasad Gardens, Poorna Market, Visakhapatnam P. Appa Rao S/o Mutyalu Aged Major, Token No.2321, Residing At D.No.34-15-35, Sirili Street, Gnanapuram, Visakhapatnam •B. AppalaRaju, S/o Appala Naidu. Aged Major, Token No.2228, Residing At D.No.40-2-360/1 Shantinagar, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam S. K. Makka Madeena S/o Madena Aged: Major, Token No.2231, Residing At D.L.B. Quarters, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam. P. Kanaka Raju S/o Sadhu Rao Aged: Major, Token No.2279, Residing At D.No.2-139, Salipeta, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam M. Pydi Naidu S/o Sanyasi Late Aged Major, Token No.2314, Residing At O.No .40-1-24/291, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam 34. ... ■ Petitioners And 1. 3. 3. 4. 5. ... Respondents I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 20735 OF 2016) I.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 29804 OF 2016) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI P.SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following: common order Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 & 3 not to allow or engage or employ or draft fresh private workers ignoring the rights of petitioners and other workers. Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. LAKSHMI PRIYANVITHA for SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI BETHAPALLI SURYANARAYANA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) K. Satyanarayana S/O Appala naiclvi • Aged Ix/Tajor, Token No.349'3, Residing A.t.D.No.S-98, Th.umma.la.pa.lli post, Kqthavalasa, Vizia.na.ga.ra.m' 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the notice dated 17.3.2016 issued by the 5th Respondent is illegal, arbitrary, violation of article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and consequently setting aside the same by continuing the Petitioners 2 to-6 in service with all benefits. The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, ' ' ■ Ministry of Surface Transport, Sanshad Marg, New Delhi. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Chairman, The Traffic Manager, Cargo Handling Division, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Blrs.twhile 'V.D.L.B., 'Visakhapatnam. The Regional Labour Commissioner, Port Quarters, Behind. American Hospital, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-S. Cargo Handling Private Workers ‘Pool, . Represerxted by its President K.V. Krishna Kumar Resident of Opp. To . Fire Station, • Visakhapatriam. ■ • ' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the notice dt. 17-03-2016 issued by the 5*’’ respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA COMMON ORDER: 1. one and the same. Therefore, I am of the view that it is W.P. No. 15762 of 2017 came to be filed under Article 226 2. of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- 3. Port Trust - respondent No.2 herein, is a statutory body incorporated under the Major Port Trust Act and that the Cargo previously known functioning under Dock Workers (for short “VDLB”) functioning under Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. The appropriate to decide all the petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No. 15762 of 2017 as leading petition. WRIT PETITION Nos, 15762 of 2017, 16652 and 16846 of 2016 All these petitions are .filed claiming same relief by different petitioners, but the issue involved in these petitions is “....to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to declare the action of ■ the 4^ respondent in dispensing with the service of the petitioners vide letters dated 17.03.2016 and 31.05.2016 with effect, from 30.06.2016 without observing the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as illegal, void and. unsustainable and to issue a consequential direction to the 4\"’ respondent to act in accordance with law and pass...\" The brief facts of the case are that the Visakhapatnam as Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board Handling Division - respondent No.3 herein, which was . 2 4. VS,J wps_l 5762_2017 and batch While so, after the Thermal Coal Handling Operations in the Visakhapatnam Port is introduced in the year 1985, the requirement of labour has increased tremendously. To overcome the situation, VDLB has sought permission of respondent No. 1 herein to engage private labour, for which permission has been accorded to VDLB vide letter dated 06.03.1985, to engage private labour to the extent of short supply of Dock Labour Board (for short “DLB”), subject to the condition that the private labour shall be engaged only after the entire available labour of permission, the engagement of private labour in the works of VDLB was started. Thereafter, in May, 1992, the Trade Unions in VDLB have gone on strike, demanding the employment of the children of the DLB are engaged. After receipt of said said Statute was repealed in the year 2010 and the Dock Labour Board was merged in respondent No.2’s organization, but is called as Cargo Handling Division. There was a Registered Scheme of 1959 and an unregistered scheme of 1968 in VDLB, through which the workers were engaged for the operations on the ships. Whenever the Stevedoring Companies place indents on the DLB for clearing the ships, the DLB will engage its workers for the said purpose. 3 deceased employees and medically unfit employees, which has resulted in a settlement entered between the Trade Union, the Stevedoring Companies and the Visakhapatnam Clearing and Forwarding Agents. In the said settlement, it was agreed that a system of streamlining the procedure of employment of private labour would be evolved, but, however, the same could not be As such, the Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool - respondent No.4 herein, has come into existence on:24.12.1993, with the following objects; implemented immediately. But, in June, 1993, it was agreed to ■ form a pool for regulating the employment of the private labour. (b) Through jointly promote the welfare of the workers and who are identified and enrolled in the Trust. (c) To utilize the funs of the Trust for the above purpose and also for other charitable purposes such as Education, Health, Sports and Elevation of sufferings of the poor and the needy, etc. VS,J wps_l5762_2017 and batch {a) To identify, enroll and allot work and regulate the private workers engaged by the members and users of Stevedors Association and Visakhapatnam Clearing & Forwarding Agents Association of Visakhapatnam only against short supply labour of the VDLB. 4 5. 6. The main activities of respondent No.2 Port Trust is of loading and unloading the vessels, which necessitates the employment of man power on large scale. Respondent No.3 would be supplying labour for these activities and if shortage of manpower is found, the same would be met from out of the members of respondent No.4 pool. (d) To carry out the public utility activities within the meaning of charitable purposes as defined in tile Income Tax Act. VS,J wps_r5762_2017 and batch Respondent No.4 Pool was established on 19.01.1994 as a public trust by the Visakhapatnam Stevedors Association and Visakhapatnam Clearing and Forwarding Agents Association with the objectives of identifying, enrolling, allotting the work and regulating private workers engaged by the members and I users of both the Associations against the short supply of the labour by the VDLB, to generally promote the welfare of the workers who are identified and enrolled in the Trust, to utilize the funds of the Trust for the above purposes and for such other charitable purposes and to carry out other public utility activities. 5 7. The main grievance of all the petitioners herein is that they have been working continuously from the past 20-25 years, engaged in the works of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to each and every petitioner herein and other similarly situated period, hence, there is no need for Cargo Pool Workers. The services of the petitioners were not required from 31.05.2016. However, the petitioners were permitted to work up to 30.06.2016 by the subsequent letter of respondent No.4 dated 31.05.2016. The two said notices were not preceded by any loss of employment. persons, wherein it is stated that the port is mechanizing its operations and the necessity for engaging Cargo Pool Workers through respondent No.4 and has put in more than 240 days of work in every year in the last 20-25 years. Respondent No.4 is the immediate employer and respondent No.2 is the Principal employer of the petitioners. While the matter being so, all of a sudden, respondent No.4 had issued a notice dated 17.03.2016 VS,J wps_15762_2017 and batch other information being given to the petitioners nor any payments were offered to the petitioners as a compensation for for unloading thermal coal from railway wagons is diminishing . and that the work would be totally unavailable after certain . 6 8. following order: 9. Respondents did not file any counter. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.4 - Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool is the definition of an industry compensation. The action of respondent No.4 in removing the VS,J wps_15762_2017 and batch “In the meanwhile, the 5^** respondent is restrained from engaging any other worker for the work that is being performed by the petitioners till today.” as provided under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “I.D.Act”). Respondent . No.4 has been engaging the petitioners for the last 20 years and paying remuneration, to them. No compensation has been offered to the petitioners nor anything has been paid to them so far towards the termination of their services as a measure of employer of the petitioners and it engaged the petitioners continuously in the works of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 since more than 20 years. Respondent No.4 - Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool is an industry as its activities fall within the In W.P.No. 15762 of 2017, no interim order was passed. But, in W.P.Nos. 16652 and 16846 of 2016, while ordering notice before admission, on 28.06.2016 this Court passed the 7 petitioners from. employment amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the I.D.Act. It is further contended that the cause shown by respondent No.4 while petitioners from 31.06.2016 is also not genuine and requested to allow the writ petitions. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of this Court in 11. and petitioners as their services were engaged by respondent No.4- Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool, and that the writ petitions are not maintainable against Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool, which is not a Government body and the petitioners did not seek any relief against the other respondents * AIR 1990 AP 171 VS,J wps_l 5762_2017 and batch as the present impugned notice was given by respondent No.4, and requested to dismiss the writ petition. In support of his “Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Amalapuram Vs. N.Seetluirama Raju^” Learned standing counsel for the. respondents contended that there is no relationship of employer and employee or industry and workmen between the Visakhapatnam Port Trust service with effect from removing the 8 13. 14. 15. a private (2019) 16 see 303 Before entering into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to decide VS,J wps_15762_2017 and batch as to “whether the writ petition is maintainable against respondent No.4, which is contentions, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in “Ramakrishna Mission Vs. Kago Kunya^” These writ petitions are filed challenging the notice dated 17.03.2016 issued by respondent No.4 - Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool, Visakhapatnam. In view of the fact that most of the petitioners have received Exgratia, retrenchment compensation, and Gratuity, the said statement made by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. However, learned counsel for respondent No.4 - Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool stated that settlement has arrived by and between the workmen and respondent No.4 during pendency of these writ petitions and filed copies of vouchers evidencing payment of Exgratia, retrenchment i compensation, and Gratuity to most of the petitioners. 9 16. 17. 18. definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which reads thus: If a person or authority is \"State\" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, admittedly a writ petition Under Article 226 would lie against such a person or body. Therefore, even if writ petition would be maintainable against an authority, which is \"State\" under Article 12 of the Constitution, before issuing any writ, particularly writ of mandamus, the Court has To decide “whether respondent N6.4 - Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool is a ‘State”’, it is necessary to refer to the VS,J wps_15762_2017 and batch organization”, and, “whether respondent No.4 - Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution?” to satisfy that action of such an authority, which is challenged, is in the domain of public law as distinguished from private law. Writ of Mandamus can be granted only against the State and - its instrumentalities when a demand made by private individuals to do or not to do an act or thing by the State or its instrumentalities and denied the same by the authorities. 8 10 19. maintainable, which is as follows: 20. A Writ of Mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public or statutory duty in the performance of which the petitioner has a sufficient legal interest. A mandamus can be issued to an official or ’{2013) 10 see 733 I VS,J wps_15762_2017 and-batch a society to compel him to carry out the a writ petition may be 12. Definition: In this part, unless the context -otherwise requires, “the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory, of India or under the control of the Government of India. • In “Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas^” the Hon hie “18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that a writ petition Under Article 226 of the eonstitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (y) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a. person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.” terms of the Statute under or by which the society is Supreme Court analysed its earlier judgments and provided a classification of entities against whom 11 constituted or governed and also to companies or Corporation to carry out duties placed on them by the Statute authorizing their undertaking. A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a Statute for the purpose of fillfilling public responsibilities. 21. In “Binny Ltd. and Ors. Vs. V.Sadasivan^”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also quoted the Commentary Smith, Woolf 8b Jowell in Chapter 3 para 0.24 therein it has been stated as follows: “A body is performing a \"public function\" when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public and is accepted by the public or that section of the VS,J wps_15762_2017 and.batch “It is difficult to draw a line between the public functions arid private functions when it is being discharged by a purely private authority. A body is performing a \"public function\" when it seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public and is accepted by the public or that section of the public as having authority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise public functions when they intervene or participate in social or economic affairs in the public interest.” on Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Fifth Edn.) by de AIR 2005 SC 3202 12 • 23. the 24. is mere regulatory, whether under statute or otherwise, it will public as having authority to do so. Bodies therefore exercise public functions when they intervene of participate in social or economic affairs in the public interest. whether in the light of the cumulative facts as -established, the body, is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government, albeit if the control VS,J wps_15762_2017 and batch Public functions need not be the exclusive doniain of the state. Charities, self-regulatoiy organizations and other nominally private institutions (such as universities, the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's of London, churches) may in reality also perform some types of public function. As Sir John Donaldson M.R. urged, it is important for the courts to \"recognize the realities of executive power\" and not allow \"their vision to be clouded by the subtlety and sometimes complexity of the way in which it can be exerted.\" Noh-governmental bodies such as these are just as capable of abusing their powers as is government.” It is to be observed that the determination of a body as a 'State' is not a rigid set of principles. What is to be seen is These observations make it abundantly clear that in order to seek writ of Mandamus against respondent No.4, petitioners have to prove that respondent No.4 was established to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of public and accepted by the public as having authority to do so. 13 not serve to make the body a State. Also, the presence of some element of public duty or function would not by itself suffice for bringing a body within the net of Article 12 (See: Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others^”) 25. In “Ramakrishna Mission Vs. Kago Kunyd’ (referred supra), the Supreme Court held that before an organization can performed by the State in its sovereign capacity. . 26. The HonTde Supreme Court in “Binny Ltd. and Ors. Vs. V.Sadasivan” (referred supra) held as follows: 27. But, in the present case, the writ petitioners stated in the ' • affidavit itself that as the agreement for streamlining the VS,J wps_15762_2017 and batch 5 (2005) 4 see 649 “The scope of mandamus is determined by the nature of the. duty to be enforced, rather than the identity of the authority against whom it is sought. If the private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any right is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial, but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action.” be held to discharge a public function, the function must be of a character that is closely related to functions which are 14 not be - Cargo 28. accepted by the public authority to do so. The as having petitioners have show that respondent No.4 - Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool was established under a statute to perform a \"public function\" and to achieve benefit for the public some collective or a section of the public and the same is or that section of the public procedure of employment of private labour could implemented, they were agreed to form a pool for regulating the employment of the private labour, accordingly, respondent No.4 has come into existence on 24.12.1993. The not filed any document to VS, J wps_15762_2017 and batch name of “respondent No.4 Handling Private Workers Poor itself shows that it is a private workers pool’ and formed for the benefit of the workers, which is not directly or indirectly connected to the State or its instrumentalities: Further, the Government does not have deep and pervasive control over it. Respondent No.4 being a non-statutoiy body with neither a statutory nor a public duty imposed on it by a Statute, a writ petition for mandamus does not lie against it. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable against respondent No.4. 15 29. falls within the definition of an industry as provided under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the said . judgment, this Court held as follows: 30. The law laid down by this Court in the said judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case as respondent it is a workers pool. For better appreciation of the case, this Court feels it relevant to refer to Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads thus: Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in “Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Amalapuram Vs. N.Seetharama Raju” (referred supra) to establish that respondent No.4 is an industry and its activity VS,J wps_15762_2017 and batch “A Co-operative society may be an industry if it satisfies the requirements of the definition of ‘industry’ in S.2{j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In such a situation, the provisions of Chapters V-A and V-B will apply, and certain protection would be available to the employees in the matter of termination. Since some of the provisions of the said Chapters are based upon public policy, they will be enforced by way of a writ of mandamus, in case they are violated.” (j) \" industry\" means any systematic activity carried on by co- operation between an employer and his workmen (whether such workmen are employed by such employer directly or by or through any agency, including No.4 is not an industry as 16 scientific, (b) any . activity relating to the promotion .of sales or business or both carried on by an establishment, but does not indude- VS J wps_15762_2017 and batch (i) any capital has been invested for the purpose of carrying on such activity; or (2) hospitals or dispensaries; or (3) educational, institutions; or fU) such activity is carried on with a motive to make any gain or profit, and includes- (1) any agricultural operation except where such agricultural operation is carried on in an integrated manner with ,any other activity (being any such activity as is referred to in the foregoing provisions of this douse) and such other activity is the predominant one. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub- clause,\" agricultural operation\" does not include any activity carried on in a plantation as defined in clause (fi of section 2 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (69 of 1951 );or (a) any activity of the Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948 ); a contractor) for the production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes (not being wants or wishes which are merely spiritual or religious in nature), whether or not,~ (5) khadi or village industries; or (4) institutions owned or managed by organisations wholly .or substantially engaged in any charitable, social or philanthropic service; or research or training 17 (7) any domestic service; or 31. document to show that respondent No.4 was established under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Further, they have not filed any iota of evidence to establish employee and employer relationship between them and respondent No.4. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.4 is petitioners are workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and their termination would fall within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes 5 (6) any activity of the Government relatable to the sovereign functions of the Government including all the activities carried on by the departments of the Central Government dealing with defence research, atomic ■ energy and space; or VS,J wps_15762_2017 and batch (9) any activity, being an activity carried on by a co operative society or a club or any other like body of individuals, if the number of persons employed by the co- operative society, club or other like body of individuals in relation to such activity is less than ten\" In the present case, the petitioners have not filed any an industry and the (8) any activity, being a profession practised by an individual or body or individuals, if the number of persons employed by the individual or body of individuals in relation to such profession is less than ten; or 18 32. to be dismissed as they are hot . maintainable. 34. to the petitioners to 35. if any, in the Writ //t r ue c o py// FICER 1 I Act, is rejected. Further, there is between respondent No.2 Miscellaneous petitions pending. Petitions, shall stand closed. In view of the above detailed order, W.P.Nos. 16652 and 16846 of 2016 are also liable VS,J wps_15762_2017 and batch . no contract of employment - Visakhapatnam Port Trust or respondent No.4 - Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool and the petitioners. Accordingly, W.P.Nos. 15762 of 2017, 16652 and 16846 of 2016 are dismissed granting liberty approach respondent No.4 with Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR ^ECTlol To’l One CC to Sri G Vijaya Saradhi, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s V Uma Devi. Advocate [OPUC] 6 One CC,to.Si;i Srinivasa Rao Putluri. Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCS GP’for Labour. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies RAM - a request to settle their claims as has been done to most of the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. For the aforesaid reasons, W.P.No. 15762 of 2017 is liable to be dismissed as it is not maintainable. 33. HIGH COURT DATED:12/07/2023 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.15762 of 2017,16652 and 16846 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WPs WITHOUT COSTS 3 0 SEP 2023 Section * "
Other Referred Cases
Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Amalapuram Vs. N.Seetluirama Raju, Ramakrishna Mission Vs. Kago Kunya, Binny Ltd. and Ors. Vs. V.Sadasivan
Laws Referred To
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947, Section 151 CPC
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
Object Clause - Merchant Banking Business
Mehul₹100
Non-Compete Agreement
₹0
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026