WP/9301/2026 of THUMMALAGUNTA PRATAP KUMAR Vs ANDHRA PRADESH STATE OF BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITSED on 14 April 2026

ORDER:-

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue order or orders, direction or directions, Writ or Writs particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in illegally and arbitrarily surrendering the Petitioner to the outsourcing agency M/s. SRR Projects on the basis of a false and fabricated misconduct report dated 08.12.2025 Rc.No.APSBCL/IMLD/NRT/PERSNL-OS/2025-26 and bearing thereby denying the Petitioner entry into IMFL Depot, Narasaraopet, from 15.11.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the Petitioner as Assistant Stores Officer (Outsourcing) at IMFL Depot, Narasaraopet with continuity of service…”

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

3. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that he is working under the Respondent No.5/Contractor as Assistant Stores Officer on outsourcing basis at APSBCL, IMFL Depot, Narasaraopet, Guntur-III, vide Circular No. A2/ Retail Outlets/ 2019/514, dated 15.09.2019 issued by the General Manager (Administration) APSBCL, through Respondent No.5. The Petitioner has been continuously working since 6 years from 20.09.2019. Now the services of the Petitioner have been directed to be terminated without providing any opportunity not even following the principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have taken preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition basing on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in T. Subba Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.467 of 2023, vide its judgment dated 14.07.2023, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has held as under: “9. Undisputedly there is no privity of contract between the official respondents and the appellant. The recruitment was done by the respondent No.3 the contractor. The petitioner was not engaged by the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

10. With respect to the payment by the respondent No.2 out of escrow account, in a similar matter, in W.P.Nos.12035, 12154 and 11898 of 2021, this aspect was elaborately dealt in judgment dated 05.08.2021. It is apt to reproduce the relevant part, as under:- “Therefore, a reading of these clauses cumulatively leads to a conclusion that in order to ensure that the amounts/salaries due to the workers are paid to them this escrow account has been opened. The account was not opened for any other reason Normally, if a contractor is appointed he will raise a bill and collect the amounts, but as the payment of salaries to outsourced employees has become a matter of serious concern it was decided in the meeting held on 13.07.2018 to open these escrow accounts. The contractors stated that they have no objection if the operators are paid salaries directly through an escrow bank account.

As far as the other issues are concerned it is clear that the recruitment is done by the contractor. The attendance sheet is prepared by the contractor. It is sent to the vendor to raise a bill. Clause 2.3 and in 2.11 of Working Methodology clearly state as follows: “2.3. Attendance Sheet shall be prepared each month separately for each sub-station. The attendance sheet shall be marked „P‟ for present and „A‟ for absence (pro-forma enclosed) and signed by the AE/or ADE of respective sub- stations and submit the same to the respective DE/Operation by 25th of every month, to admit the vendor bill for payment; a copy of attendance sheet shall be mailed to the vendor to raise the bill accordingly.

2.11. The salaries shall be paid to the outsourced employees on 1st of every month through contractors‟ escrow account by Pay office seeking LOC against the liability documents.” Therefore, it is clear that the opening of the escrow account is for a specific purpose and it does not establish and employer- employee relationship between the petitioner/ workmen and the official respondent. There is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the official respondents.”

5. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has also held in the similar circumstances in W.A.No.310 of 2024 dated 30.08.2024 (The Chairman and Managing Director and others vs. P. Nagendra and others), wherein the identical issue with regard to Shift Operators has been considered and finally disposed of the matter with the following observations: “50. A reading of the judgment of the learned single Judge shows that, the writ petition was allowed observing that though the petitioners were engaged on contract basis, their services were required continuously for the organization. The duties and responsibilities entrusted to petitioners were of perennial nature. It could not be stated that the services of the petitioners were no longer required and as such there was no requirement of continuing the petitioners either on contract, casual, or daily basis. The writ petitioners claim was opposed by the company on the ground that they were engaged through contractor which aspect was extensively considered in W.A.No. 1478 of 1999 in which, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh (supra), it was observed that the statutory body should not be permitted to violate the statute with impunity and the same would amount to unfair labour practice. Thus, the emphasis laid was on the judgment in W.A.No.1478 of 1999 which had attained finality as also on the fact that the writ petitioners were working for last twenty years and there was no adverse remarks against them from which it was drawn that they had rendered satisfactory service.

51. A reading of the judgment of the learned single Judge, however, does not show, any finding recorded on the aspect of the relationship of the employer and employee between the writ appellant and the writ petitioners.”

6. It has also been observed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in para No.59 (ii)(iii) and (vii) of its judgment as follows:

(ii) In the absence of any finding on the aspect of the relationship of the employer and employee between the writ appellants and the writ petitioners, the direction for regularization is unsustainable.

(iii) The question whether there is relationship of employer and employee between the writ appellants and the writ petitioners is a question of fact. To record the finding, the material would be required. The evidence would be required. It will also have to be seen whether the writ appellant is a licenced principal employer and the contractor, as named in the writ petitions, was a licenced contractor. It will also have to be seen whether there was any genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant point of time or not, and whether the contract labourers became employees of the principal employer in course of time and whether the engagement and employment through contractor was a mere camouflage. All this is required to be established on the basis of requisite material, may be after lifting of veil or piercing the veil.

(vii) The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy to be approached directly in such matters seeking regularization, and particularly, when the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal have got the jurisdiction to consider such aspect and on the determination of the relevant factual aspects based on material they have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders for regularization.

7. On perusal of the above observations of the Division Benches of this Hon’ble Court, it is very clear that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable before this Court and this is not an appropriate remedy to be approached directly in such matters seeking regularization, and particularly, when the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal have got the jurisdiction to consider such aspect and on the determination of the relevant factual aspects based on material they have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders for regularization.

8. Following the above said observations, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Labour Court for their grievance. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date:15.04.2026

KK