AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These two writ petitions raise same questions of fact and law, therefore they are decided by this common order.
Different petitioners have joined on different dates but those dates are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. The facts relating to both the petitions which are relevant are that, a branch of respondent Bank is operating at Tirumala Hills. According to the petitioners, in addition to its commercial transactions it is also dealing with sale of prasadam i.e., Laddus of the Lord Sri Venkateswara at Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. The Bank also sells the tickets which are needed by pilgrims for performing the rituals before the. Deity. The Bank, according to the petitioners engaged the petitioners as their employees for lifting the Laddus which arc kept in trays in the kitchen situated at the main temple. These Laddus are carried from kitchen to the counters of the Bank and other places for distribution. The pilgrims who want Laddus make the payment at the counter of the Bank and Laddus are given to them on production of tokens. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam is well known temple and thousands of pilgrims visit every day and the job of distribution of prasadam is perennial in nature and number of workers are needed for distribution of prasadam to the pilgrims and it is virtually impossible for the Bank to transact its business of selling laddus without the employees. Persons are also needed for issuing tickets. The respondents have failed to create regular posts and regularise the services of the petitioners and only to divest them from regular appointments a contract labour system has been devised. The contractor is in no way concerned with the execution of the work of the Bank. The petitioners were got inducted into the Baroda Bank through the contract labour system and were continued. They have been taken into service through Protective Security service from different dates and they are lifting the trays from the main kitchen to the laddu counters. An amount of Rs.1,500/- is being paid to each employee and the contractor make a deduction of Rs.50/- and they are given balance of Rs.1450/-. The petitioners further submit that the work being perennial and round the clock they have to work for almost 24 hours even on public holidays and Sundays. First respondent is their principal employer, therefore they want a direction from this Court that posts should be created and they should be regularised against those posts.
Counters have been filed. It appears that the distribution of the laddus of the Devasthanam is not being done by only the Baroda Bank which is the respondent in this writ petition but also by other Banks. One of such Banks is Indian Bank. The persons engaged by them in similar circumstances also filed a writ petition in this Court being WP No.17514 of 1999 which has been dismissed by this Court with the following observations :
"This writ petition is filed by 12 persons who are allegedly working as casual employees of the Indian Bank Laddus Counter, Tirumala Branch. This Court ordered notice before admission on 27-8-1999 and further ordered that the 3rd respondent bank shall not dispense with the service of any of the petitioners. After receiving the notice, the 3rd respondent has come forward with an application being WV MP No.2656 of 1999 praying to vacate the interim order. As the writ petition is not admitted and the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent were heard at length, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the learned Counsel.
The allegations in the writ affidavit are as follows : So as to streamline the distribution of famous Tirumala Laddus to the pilgrims, the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD) entrusted the job to Bank of Baroda who will collect the requisite amount and distribute the prasadam. According to the petitioners Bank of Baroda engaged them and paid an amount of Rs.0.75 ps., per tray for bringing the laddu trays from the TTD kitchen (popularly called ''potu''). Little while later the same was entrusted to the 3rd respondent who according to the petitioners engaged them and paying the amount at the rate of Rs.30/- per day per person at the rate of 0.75 ps. per tray. The petitioners claim that as the TTD and the 3rd respondent are paying the regular pay scales to the employees appointed on casual basis, they should also be treated on par with those casual employees and be paid regular salaries on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Therefore, the petitioners pray for a mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to continue them as casual employees by paying wages on par with similarly placed employees.
In the counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent denied the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that for the purpose of distribution of laddus, the 3rd respondent engaged M/s. Productive Security Services, Tirupathi by entering into a contract. The contract inter alia provides that M/s. Productive Security services should engage their own men and bring the laddus from ''Potu'' to the distribution counter on condition of payment" of 0.75 ps. per tray by the Indian Bank. Therefore it is stated that there is no contract of employment between the petitioners on one hand and the 3rd respondent on the other. The petitioners are engaged by M/s. Productive Security Services and they are not employees of the Indian Bank. It is also highlighted in the counter that even when Bank of Baroda was distributing laddus through their counter the same security agency was engaged for the purpose.
The only point for consideration is whether the petitioners can be treated as those engaged directly by Indian Bank Laddus counter, Tirumala Branch or not ?
No material is placed before this Court to disbelieve the statement made by the third respondent in the counter affidavit. No reply affidavit is filed. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent has produced before me the various bills received from M/s. Productive Security Services, Tirupathi claiming charges for bringing laddus from the ''potu'' to the counter at the rate of 0.75 ps. per tray. This, in my opinion, clinchingly proves that the allegations made by the petitioners are not true. Further no case is made out as to support the apprehension of the petitioners that they will be discontinued by M/s. Productive Security Services. If the petitioners have any grievance, they may proceed against M/s. Productive Security Services and they cannot maintain the present writ petition as there is no jural relationship whatsoever between the petitioners and the third respondent herein.
In view of this, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
Similar facts which were agitated before the Court in WP No. 17514 of 1999 have been agitated before this Court. Material has not been placed before this Court which would suggest that the petitioners were engaged by the respondent-Bank at any point of time. But, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on Supreme Court judgment in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh and others 1999 (3) Supreme 277 and submits that this Court will have to see the real contractual relationship between the Bank and the petitioners and the contract system is a camouflage and smoke and the screen will have to be lifted.
Before this Court seeks the import of the judgment of the Supreme Court it has to be seen clearly as to in which arrangement the petitioners are working. It is well known that lakhs of pilgrims visit the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and it might have not been possible for the authorities of Devasthanam to distribute the prasadam (Laddus) which is being distributed on payment. Therefore, they devised the method of deposit of the price of laddus with the Bank, the Bank issues the tokens and on production of tokens prasadam is distributed. This system ensure that there is no pilferage of the prasadam and there is also no misappropriation of the amounts received. Along with the counter affidavit the respondents have produced the proceedings of the Executive Officer, TTD dated 1-2-1995 by which the respondent-Bank was permitted to operate these counters in the complex. The procedure was laid down by the TTD itself. Another order was passed on 10-6-1996 which lays down :
"At present the laddu trays are being lifted from Vagapadi (Godown) to Bank of Baroda Sales Counter, opposite to Sri T.T. by employing TTD packers, working in two shifts as and when required according to demand raised by Bank of Baroda. The empty Laddu trays are also brought by the TTD packers.
As at present, the TTD packers/Forest Mazdoors/Mazdoors working in Laddu lifting section is very limited and are facing much difficulty to lift both laddu trays and empty trays from Bank of Baroda counter, besides to the TTD counters.
Hence, the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Tirumala is requested to make his own arrangements for lifting of laddu trays from Vagapadi to Bank of Baroda counters and empty trays from Bank of Baroda counter to Vagapadi as done previously by the Andhra Bank w.e.f. 15-6-1996. Further, the Manager, Bank of Baroda is requested to provide identification cards to their staff who will be lifting laddu trays and empty trays for admittance at Mahadwaram entrance, Sri T.T., Tirumala."
The proceedings of 1-2-1995 and order of 10-6-1996 would show that the Bank is operating its counters of accepting the money; for laddus which is basically a banking function but getting the laddus from the kitchen to the distribution counters is a function which is being performed by the Banks perhaps as gratis. This may also be'' facilitating their banking functions. But, the operation of these counters where the laddus are distributed is dependent on the wishes of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. Tomorrow the TTD may dispense with the system and start distribution of laddus itself. The petitioners, if allowed to be regularised by the Bank it would have to face difficult consequences. The distribution of laddus is perennial but the arrangement between the TTD and the Bank is not permanent. Therefore, the judgment of Supreme Court in my view is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Since there is no contract, as has been held by this Court earlier also, between the petitioner and the Bank, therefore the petitioners cannot be treated to be employees of the Bank.
For these reasons, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. Stay vacated.