ORDER : 1. The petitioners, who were working under the contractor – M/s.Sterling and Wilson Private Limited, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the AP TRANSCO and its officials to declare the action of respondent No.3 in orally terminating the services of the petitioners from Electrical High Tension 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru and not allowing petitioners for duties with effect from 23.11.2020 on the ground that the contract of the then contractor of Electrical High Tension 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru vide letter dated 20.11.2020 of respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in para 46 at page 151 in “State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118 ” and also in para-18 of the judgment in “K. Ravinder v. A.P. Generation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, (2000) 6 ALD 56 ” and contrary to the letter and spirit of the Memo No. CGM (HRD/ DS/ AS.III/ PO.VII /Adm/D.No.3596/04, dated 27.12.2004 besides violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to discharge their usual daily duties just like before 23.11.2020 in their respective capacities irrespective of the fact of change of contractors from time to time. 2. The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that all the petitioners were appointed through notification published in a newspaper, on contract/outsourcing basis during May, 2019 as High Skilled, Skilled and Un-skilled labourers to work at Electrical High Tension (EHT) 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru. More particularly to operate and maintain the said Sub-Station, M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt., Ltd., was given contract for carrying out operation work along with construction package for a period of 2 years at 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru by engaging 4 number of Diploma in Electrical Engineers and 4 numbers of ITI Electrician Trade and 3 numbers of un-skilled persons for the period from 01.06.2019 till 31.05.2021. 3. While the things stood thus, in recent past, vide letter dated 20.11.2020, the manning contract of contractor for 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru got terminated with effect from 23.11.2020 on the ground that the contractor committed irregularities in appointing Contract/Outsourcing Workmen for respective Sub-Stations. Before terminating the contract itself, the contractor denied the irregularities in appointments. But they were allowed to continue in attending maintenance of 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru. Before terminating the contract itself, the contractor denied the irregularities in appointments. But they were allowed to continue in attending maintenance of 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru. In spite of the fact that the contract is subsisting till 31.05.2021 to continue in their respective posts, they were thrown out forcibly on 23.11.2020 after completion of 10 am shift with a view to replace the petitioners from another set of contract employees. Factually, even after completion of 31.05.2021, the respondents have no right to terminate their services, mechanically, except for proven misconduct. On 26.11.2020, all the petitioners brought their grievance to the notice of respondent No.3, but, they did not give any acknowledgment. In continuation of earlier representation, the petitioners submitted elaborate representation dated 01.12.2020, and brought their grievance to the notice of respondent No.1, requested to do justice, but the same did not yield any fruitful result. 4. The main grounds urged by the petitioners are as follows: (a) Even after completion of contract period on 31.05.2021 the respondents have no right to terminate the services of the petitioners mechanically except on proof of misconduct. (b) The very thought of replacing the petitioners with another set of contract/outsourcing workmen is illegal and contrary to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in “State of Haryana v. Piara Singh” (referred supra). (c) The petitioners further contended that the services of contract employees cannot be terminated to substitute another set of contract employees, thereby the attempt made by the respondents to substitute another set of contract employees terminating the contractor – M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd is contrary to the principle laid down by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in “K. Ravinder v. A.P. Generation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad” (referred supra) on this ground also, the action of respondent No.3 be declared as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in “State of Haryana v. Piara Singh” (referred supra). (d) The nature of work of the petitioners come under core activity and the duties attached to the post of the petitioners are not temporary in nature but, they are perennial in nature and the petitioners are working round the clock i.e. 24 hours and 365 days. (d) The nature of work of the petitioners come under core activity and the duties attached to the post of the petitioners are not temporary in nature but, they are perennial in nature and the petitioners are working round the clock i.e. 24 hours and 365 days. Factually, all the posts supposed to be filled-up with regular employees, but, in order to save money, reduce financial burden on the management, all those posts are being filled up with contract employees while directing them to discharge the duties with regular employees. Thus, engaging the services of the petitioners on contract basis is nothing but exploitation of labour. Hence, the act of respondents is illegal. (e) Maintenance of GRID is a major issue in TRANSCO, hence, to maintain GRID properly, dedicated employees are required. Because of discharging duties by the petitioners with a lot of dedication by coordinating with all concerned employees there is no GRID failure during last two years. On account of disputes with the contractor – M/s. Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd., the petitioners were terminated by respondent No.3. (f) The act of respondent No.3 is contrary to Regulation-3 (c) and (d) of APSEB Service Regulations, which deals with the power to engage the contract labour and regularizing their services. Therefore, termination of services of the petitioners by respondent No.3 is totally in contravention of Regulation – 3 (c) and (d) of APSEB Service Regulations, but the petitioners are waiting patiently without approaching the Court waiting for an opportunity to claim regularisation, but no purpose was served. (g) In previous recruitment notifications issued for recruiting regular employees, AP TRANSCO, AP GENCO and DISCOMS had given in-service weightage marks to the Contract/Outsourcing Workmen for their respective working period, the same is evident from the judgment reported in “S. Kesava Rao v. The Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL, Corporate office, Tirupathi, Chittor district, 2012 (5) ALD 71 (DB)”, but to avoid such weightage while taking up recruitment, the contract was terminated denying the petitioners to claim weightage. (h) The petitioners were thrown out to avoid regularisation of services in terms of Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the request of the petitioners is genuine and bonafide, but they were not allowed to discharge their work, thereby sought relief as stated supra. 5. The respondents did not file any counter. 6. (h) The petitioners were thrown out to avoid regularisation of services in terms of Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the request of the petitioners is genuine and bonafide, but they were not allowed to discharge their work, thereby sought relief as stated supra. 5. The respondents did not file any counter. 6. During hearing, Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the petition while drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in “State of Haryana v. Piara Singh” and also the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in “K. Ravinder v. A.P. Generation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad” (referred supra), the selection process undertaken by the respondents to contend that though the petitioners were under the supervision of respondent No.3, they were asked to work under the contractor. Therefore, the petitioners were directly under the control and supervision of respondent No.3 and its officers as they are directly paying salaries to the petitioners, but camouflaging the same, the relationship of contractor and contractee was created between the respondents and M/s. Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. in the guise of contract to maintain 132/33 KV Sub-Station, at Vinzamuru and entered into contract. 7. It is further contended that when the petitioners are under the direct control of respondent No.3 and its officials, the petitioners cannot be thrown out abruptly to avoid their regularisation in terms of APSEB Service Regulations and such termination is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in “State of Haryana v. Piara Singh” and also the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in “K. Ravinder v. A.P. Generation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad” (referred supra), requested to issue a direction as sought supra. 8. 8. Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents, supported the action of the respondents on the ground that there was no direct relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents and the services of the petitioners were engaged by the M/s. Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. as such without impleading the contractor, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition and the judgment of the Apex Court in “State of Haryana v. Piara Singh” and also the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in “K. Ravinder v. A.P. Generation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad” (referred supra) have no application to the present facts of the case. In the absence of any legal right or statutory right to enforce against the respondents, the writ of Mandamus cannot be issued, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arose for consideration are: (1) Whether there was any relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and respondents? (2) Whether the termination of contract for maintaining 132/33 KV Sub-Station at Vinjamuru with M/s. Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. would create/confer any right to claim continuation of the petitioners in service? If so, whether the denial of discharge of duties by the petitioners in 132/3 KKV Sub-Station at Vinzamuru is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in “State of Haryana v. Piara Singh” and also the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in “K. Ravinder v. A.P. Generation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad” (referred supra) and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and liable to be declared as illegal while directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to work at 132/33 KV Sub-Station at Vinjamuru? POINT No.1: 10. Undisputedly, the services of the petitioners were engaged by the M/s. Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd., who is entered into contract with respondent No.3 to manage/maintain 132/33 KV Sub-Station at Vinzamuru. Thus, there is no direct relationship of employer and employee between the respondents and the petitioners, but for one reason or other, the M/s. Sterling and Wilson Pvt.Ltd., who engaged the services of the petitioners, is not made as a party. 11. Thus, there is no direct relationship of employer and employee between the respondents and the petitioners, but for one reason or other, the M/s. Sterling and Wilson Pvt.Ltd., who engaged the services of the petitioners, is not made as a party. 11. In view of the specific contention raised by the petitioners that their services were engaged by respondent No.3 directly having participated in the selection process and supervising the work of the petitioners, paying salaries directly to the petitioners, it is necessary to advert to the process undertaken by the concerned in selection of the petitioners. 12. Copy of the contract is placed on record to find out the purpose of contract. As per the contract, nature of the work is carrying out operation works of EHT Sub-Station along with construction package for a period of 2 years at 132 KV SS Vinjamuru by engaging 4 Nos. I.I.I. (Electrician Trade) and 3 Nos. Un-skilled persons for the period from 01.06.2019 to 31.05.2021 in OMC circle Nellore. 13. The rates for the operations cost (Monthly) shall covers fixed wages of workers as per Minimum Wages Act. Administrative and Supervision Charges, EPF, ESI etc. Fixed Charges/covering wages to workers of labour employed/per month as per minimum wages Act i.e. Category Pay per month Rs. Other allowances per month Rs. Total Remuneration (Per person per month) Rs. Highly skilled 14,973.00 7,616.00 22,589.00 Skilled 12,003.00 8,595.00 20,598.00 Un-skilled 8,284.00 8,189.00 16,473.00 14. Wages to be paid to the contract labour shall be calculated for 30/31 days. Hence, the contractor shall ensure that all the labour to be engaged should avail weekly off on suitability of the work. 15. The contract is also contained clauses relating to Administrative and Supervision Charges, ESI/Insurance/other statutory Acts and security deposit etc. 16. The responsibilities of the contractor are dealt with by clause 28 of the contract/agreement and clause 29 deals with deployment of personnel, which is as follows: “29. DEPLOYEMENT OF PERSONNEL: (a) The Contractor shall provide necessary labour with minimum qualification as specified and they will be tested for their, knowledge for various Operations in the Substation connecting to the breakers, isolators. issuing of line clear. etc., before actually engaging them by the selection committee. (b) Each personnel deployed by the Contractor should be issued identity card with passport size photograph affixed, on it and duly attested by the Contractor. issuing of line clear. etc., before actually engaging them by the selection committee. (b) Each personnel deployed by the Contractor should be issued identity card with passport size photograph affixed, on it and duly attested by the Contractor. A photo copy of such identity card to be given to officer-in-charge; (c) In the event of the contractor substituting the Highly skilled /skilled/unskilled labour by suitable labour of the qualification laid down, they will be kept on a training period of seven days at contractors cost. (d) Procedure for checking the educational qualifications: For EHT sub-stations. (i) Highly Skilled labour:- The Executive Engineer/ Deputy Executive Engineer has to verity the certificate produced by the labour (through the contractor). They will be kept in training under supervision of Deputy Executive Engineer/Asst. Engineer for one week to acquaint to the EHT System. (ii) Skilled labour:- The Executive Engineer/ Deputy Executive Engineer has to verify the certificate produced by the labour (through the contractor). They will be kept in training under supervision of Asst. Divisional Engineer for one week to acquaint to the EHT system. (iii) The contractors has to submit the notary attested copies of certificates of labourers and an undertaking on Rs.100 stamp paper by the individual labourer that the educational qualifications are true and if found incorrect at later stage, the contractor is liable for suitable criminal and civil actions.” 17. As per clause (d) of condition No.29 of the Contract, the Executive Engineer/Deputy Executive Engineer has to verity the certificate produced by the labour (through the contractor). They will be trained under supervision of Deputy Executive Engineer/Asst. Engineer for one week to acquaint to the EHT System. 18. As such, genuineness of the certificates of the petitioners regarding qualifications of highly skilled labour and skilled labour were verified by the department people of respondent No.3. Whereas, notarised attested copies of the certificates were directed to be produced and undertaken shall be given on Rs.100/-stamp paper by the individual labourer. 19. After entering into contract, M/s. Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. invited applications under the caption “Wanted”, which is as follows: “WANTED Contract Labours are being recruited for 220KV Sub-Station, Atmakuru & 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru of AP Transco by the M/s.Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. 1. Highly Skilled (Diploma EEE) 2. Skilled (ITI Electrician) 3. Un-skilled (minimum 9th class pass) QUALIFICATIONS 1. Age Limit 18 years to 35 years 2. Highly Skilled (Diploma EEE) 2. Skilled (ITI Electrician) 3. Un-skilled (minimum 9th class pass) QUALIFICATIONS 1. Age Limit 18 years to 35 years 2. Possess requisite qualifications 3. Must pass in qualifying examination 4. Appointments should be done by following RoR ATTEND FOR EXAMINATIONS HELD ON 17,18-01-2019 CONTACT: 7702212170” 20. Though the contact number was given in the notification, it is not known to this Court – whose number was that and whether the notification was issued by M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. or any third party agency. But the petitioners were selected after calling for application for Highly skilled, skilled, and un-skilled to work under the Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. 21. After completion of selection process, appointment letters were issued to the petitioners by Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. specifying the terms and conditions of appointment, which are as follows: “STERLING AND WILSON PVT. LTD. Electro Mechanical Engineers Associates of Shapporji Pallonji Pvt. Ltd. CIN:U31200MH1974PLC017538 Dt.24.05.2019 To Madhusudhana Rao P S/o Chennaiah Perumalla, Chejerla Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore Distrct-524342, Andhra Pradesh. Lr.No.NIL Dt.24.05.2019 Sub:- Appointment orders of contract Highly Skilled Person to work at 132 KV Substation, APTRANSCO, Vinjamuru-Reg. You have been selected as contract Highly Skilled Person in our M/s Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd, to at O&M Works 132KV Substation, APTRANSCO, Vinjamuru from 24-05-2019 To 23-05-2021 you are deputed to work under the directions of Assistant Executive Engineer Deputy Executive Engineer, Vinjamuru. The following are the terms and conditions for the above appointment. (1) You have to work 8:00 hrs round the clock shift duties/maintenance works and you have to work sincerely and obediently and follow the instructions of Assistant Executive Engineer Deputy Executive Engineer, Vinjamuru. (2) This appointment is purely temporary and if you full to perform your duties directed by the Assistant Executive Engineer/ Deputy Executive Engineer, Vinjamuru. You are liable for termination from duties with one month notice without assigning any reasons thereto. (3) Your salary will be 14,973- + Other Allowance Rs.7,616/- = Rs.22,589/- EPF will be given @ 13.36 % inclusive @ contribution from the employee. From absence of duties, The proportionate amount Rs.300/- will be recovered from your monthly salary of respective month. (4) The disputes arising out of this appointment should be decided in the courts situated in Nellore Dist only. From absence of duties, The proportionate amount Rs.300/- will be recovered from your monthly salary of respective month. (4) The disputes arising out of this appointment should be decided in the courts situated in Nellore Dist only. (5) You shall note that carrying the work in the vicinity equipment in service, care must be taken to avoid any accidents, If any work is to be done on any of the equipment and shall ensure that such works will be carried out only after taking proper line clear. (6) It is made clear to you that this is a temporary appointment in 132 KV Substation, APTRANSCO, Vinjamuru. You are not APTRANSCO employee for your claims. (7) The statutory duties and taxes as applicable from time to time as directed by Govt. of AP and labour commission such as EPF, Professional Tax and E.S.I etc. will be recovered from your salary. (8) At any time you shall not participate in strikes, dharnas and any anti-social elements against to APTRANSCO rules and regulations failure of which will cause termination of the appointment. I have read the above terms and conditions of this appointment and accept the same. LABOURER APPOINTED CONTRACTOR 22. A bare look at the letter of the appointment of the petitioners, it is evident that the petitioners were selected by M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. and created a relationship of employer and employee between them. Copies of Employees Provident Fund accounts of the petitioners were also placed on record. Those accounts would show that the establishment’s name is M/s. Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. with Id number and other details. Thus, M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. alone depositing the amount to the credit of Employees Provident Fund Organisation from the amount payable to the employees engaged by it, as contribution of the employees i.e. petitioners. Similarly, other documents produced before this Court clinchingly established that the salary is being paid by M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. The entire documentary evidence produced by the petitioners along with writ petition and allegations made in the writ affidavit clinchingly established that the services of the petitioners were engaged by M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. and not by the respondents and that there is no direct relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.3 and the petitioners. Even if the tests for determining nature of contract are applied, the petitioners failed to satisfy those tests. Even if the tests for determining nature of contract are applied, the petitioners failed to satisfy those tests. The first test is Supervision and Control, second test is Economic Control and the third test is Twin Test. 23. Except the first test i.e. test of supervision, the petitioners were not under the control of respondents. Since the TRANSCO is dealing with dangerous trade i.e. supply of electricity, the persons working therein under the constant supervision to avoid untoward incident. Therefore, the work of the petitioners is being supervised by the highly skilled officers of the respondents and mere supervision on the petitioners by itself is not sufficient to create any relationship of employer and employee. The petitioners did not satisfy any other tests to prove direct relationship between them and the respondents and the Apex Court succinctly held that the Supervision Test and Economic Control are not the determining factors to decide the relationship of employee and the employer. 24. The Apex Court held that two well-recognised tests are whether : (i) principal employer pays salary instead of contractor, and (ii) principal employer controls and supervises work of employee. 25. Applying the said test in “Shining Tailors v. The Industrial Tribunal, 1983 Lab. IC 1509” the Apex Court observed that supervision and control test was more suited to an agricultural society prior to Industrial Revolution and during the last few decades the emphasis in the field has shifted and no longer rests exclusively or strongly on the question of control. 26. Therefore, the Supervision and Control test has created more confusion, the level of supervision and control required to form a master-servant relationship is a question of fact which exist to this day. But, later the economic control is to be one of the factors to decide the relationship, but ultimately due to passage of time, the twin tests are prescribed in “Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635 ” wherein it was observed that two of the well-recognized tests to find out whether the contract labourers are the direct employees of the principal employer are (i) Whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of the contractor, and; (ii) Whether the principal employer controls and supervises the work of the employee. 27. 27. Coming to the twin test, it is satisfied partly i.e. test of supervision, but the petitioners failed to establish the second test i.e. economic test. Thereby, the petitioners failed to establish the relationship of employer and employee between the respondents and the petitioners satisfying any of the tests referred above except satisfying part of the test, that by itself is not sufficient to create relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents. 28. As discussed above, there is no direct relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents, but their services were engaged by M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. and the respondents did not participate in selection process except verification of certificates of highly skilled and skilled workers to avoid production of fake certificates to work in Sub-Station and in case they are not qualified obtaining degrees from a recognised institution, their level of understanding may be low or sub-standard. In those circumstances, if they are allowed to attend the work, it would result in serious consequences, causing loss to life and property of the general public, mostly to the consumers of electric power. Therefore, mere verification of certificates itself is not a ground to conclude that the selection process was undertaken by respondent No.3 and its officials. 29. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the petitioners miserably failed to establish the relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents. Accordingly, the point is answered against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. POINT No.2: 30. The petitioners claimed consequential relief in the writ petition to allow them to discharge their duties as usual in their respective capacities. But the petitioners were not engaged by the respondents, engaged by an independent contractor i.e. M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. for maintenance of 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru. When the contract is terminated, it is for the contractor to decide whether to engage the services in any other appropriate work, but this Court cannot issue a direction to the respondents herein to engage the services of the petitioners in maintenance of 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru for the simple reason that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the respondents and the petitioners as they were engaged by independent contractor M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. 31. There are two types of contract workers. There are two types of contract workers. First one is engaging the services of employee by the employer on contract basis obtaining necessary documents. Second one is engaging the services by an independent contractor for any specific purpose. In the first case, there is a relationship of employee and employer, but on the contract basis. In the second case, there was absolutely no relationship of employee and employer. In the present case, the petitioners cannot be deemed to be workmen within the definition of workmen. 32. On the other hand, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 deals with engagement of employees on contract basis. The said Act was enacted to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith, as the system of employment of contract labour lends itself to various abuses. The question of its abolition has been under the consideration of Government for a long time. Finally, the Act was enacted by the Government of India with avowed object to avoid unlawful labour practices and to regulate and improve the services and conditions of contract labour and not merely to abolish the same and it is a piece of social legislation. The word “contractor” is defined under Section 2 (c) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. As per Section 2 (c) of the Act, the word “contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. is a contractor within the definition of Section 2 (c) of the Act, but the petitioners were engaged by such independent contractor not by principal employer i.e. respondents herein. The word “principal employer” is defined under Section 2 (g) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. According to it, “principal employer” in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the Government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf. 33. According to it, “principal employer” in relation to any office or department of the Government or a local authority, the head of that office or department or such other officer as the Government or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in this behalf. 33. Thus, the respondents herein would fall within the definition of “principal employer” as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. 34. Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act is amended by the Andhra Pradesh State by A.P.Act No.10 of 2003 with effect from 22.08.2003 published in A.P. Gazette Part IV-B, Ext.No.12 dated 19.06.2003, which is, which is as follows. “10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, employment of contract labour in core activities of any establishment if prohibited: Provided that the principal employer may engage contract labour or a contractor to any core activity, if- (a) the normal functioning of the establishments is such that the activity is ordinarily done through contractors; or (b) the activities are such that they do not require full time workers for the major portion of the working hours in a day or for longer periods, as the case may be; (c) any sudden increase of volume of work in the core activity which needs to be accomplished in a specified time. (2) Designated authority. – (a) The 'appropriate Government' may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint a designated authority to advise them on the question whether any activity of a given establishment is a core activity or otherwise; (b) if a question arises as to whether any activity of an establishment is a core activity or otherwise the aggrieved party may make an application in such a form and manner as may be prescribed, to the appropriate Government for decision; (c) the appropriate Government may refer any question by itself or such application made to them by any aggrieved party as prescribed in clause (b), as the case may be, to the designated authority, which on the basis of relevant material in its possession, or after making such an enquiry as deemed fit shall forward the report to the appropriate Government, within a prescribed period and thereafter the appropriate Government shall decide the question within the prescribed period." 35. To abolish contract labour in industry, notification of abolition of contract labour is required to be issued in consultation with Central Advisory Board, and consultation of the State Board is mandatory. But in the present case, no notification as contemplated under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act was issued. Hence, respondent No.3 engaged independent contractor for maintaining 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru under a special contract incorporating certain terms to maintain and manage by engaging highly skilled, skilled, un skilled labour. There was absolutely nothing on record to establish the relationship of employer and employee between the respondents (principal employer) and the petitioners. 36. Assuming for a moment that there is a relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents, such engagement of employees is prohibited by the Act and their continuation is illegal. 37. It is not the case of the petitioners that the services of the petitioners were engaged in any regular vacancies after following regular process of selection of any employee by the employer, but they were selected by M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. by inviting applications by publishing notification under the caption “Wanted” as extracted above. The role of respondent No.3 is only to verify the certificates of the highly skilled and skilled workers engaged by the Contractor to find out the genuineness of their qualifications as the respondents engaged in a dangerous trade of production of electricity and supply to the consumers. The reason for verification is if any employee either skilled or unskilled produced fake certificates and not actually qualified in a particular trade, it is difficult for them to manage and maintain the 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru, which would result in failure of power supply, sometimes it may cause unnecessary electrocution causing loss to the public at large. Mere verification of the certificates in view of the trade being carried out by the petitioners would not create any relationship of employer and employee. 38. The main endeavour of the petitioners from the beginning is that contract employee cannot be substituted by another contract employee relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in “State of Haryana v. Piara Singh”, wherein it is held that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. 39. The law declared by the Apex Court in the said judgment is not in quarrel, but the same is not applicable to the present facts of the case since the petitioners are highly skilled, skilled and unskilled workers engaged by an independent contractor. When the contract itself is cancelled or came to an end, the workers engaged by the independent contractor have nothing to do with the principal employer, the respondents herein. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the contract employee cannot be substituted by another contract employee is hereby rejected. 40. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the contract is proposed to be given to the third party after terminating the contract with M/s.Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. and the consequential termination of the petitioners is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in “K. Ravinder v. A.P. Generation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad” (referred supra), wherein it is held as follows: “It also came to light that after the construction work is over in KTPS V project, some of the petitioners are working with the contractors in maintenance and operations. If the term of the contract expires and if the corporation wants to entrust the work to new contractor, it shall be made a condition precedent that he shall employ the contract labour, who are working with the previous contractor as on today. If any worker comes to adverse notice of the Corporation official, he shall not claim any benefit under any of the orders of this Court." 41. Imposition of such condition to engage the workers being engaged by other contractor is made mandatory in the judgment, but the concept of contract is totally different as there is bargain with the employees by the independent contractor and if such direction is given to the respondents herein, there is no possibility of engaging highly skilled, skilled or unskilled workers by the independent contractor of his choice settling the bargain regarding salaries etc., it impedes the very purpose of maintenance contract of 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru. 42. In the present case, one of the reliefs claimed by the petitioners is to permit them to discharge their duties as usual. 42. In the present case, one of the reliefs claimed by the petitioners is to permit them to discharge their duties as usual. Unless, maintenance work is entrusted to another independent contractor and the said contractor engages the services of the petitioner, they cannot be allowed to discharge their duties. 43. Another contention of the petitioners is that as per memo No.CGM(HRD)/ DS/ AS.III/ PO.VII/ Adm/D.No.3596/04 dated 27.12.2004 all Superintending Engineers/Operation are informed to advice the contractors not to change the labour who were already working with the respective contractors. 44. No doubt, in view of the instructions issued in memo No.CGM(HRD)/DS/AS.III/ PO.VII/Adm/D.No.3596/04 dated 27.12.2004, respondent No.3 is bound to adhere to the memo referred above in the event of change of contractor and it is for respondent No.3 to incorporate such condition keeping in view the law laid down by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in “K. Ravinder v. A.P. Generation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad” (referred supra) and in the memo No.CGM(HRD)/ DS/ AS.III/PO.VII/Adm/D.No.3596/04 dated 27.12.2004, at least the interest of the petitioners shall be protected to some extent. Even if, the services of the petitioners are engaged by the Contractor, they are not entitled for regularisation or absorption in the department in the absence of any rules for their absorption or regularisation. 45. The petitioners contended that they were orally terminated by the respondents. The question of termination of petitioners does not arise as there was no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents and their services were engaged by independent contractor, who is not a party to this petition. As soon as the contract is terminated, the petitioners are not entitled to work in 132/33 KV Sub-Station, Vinjamuru. Hence, the alleged termination is neither true nor correct and this Court cannot declare the alleged oral termination of the services of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. 46. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that it is a fit case to issue a direction to respondent No.3 to advice the contractors not to change the labour who were already working with the respective contractors. 47. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, respondent No.3 is directed to advice the contractors not to change the labour who were already working with the respective contractors in view of the memo No.CGM(HRD)/DS/AS.III/PO.VII/ Adm/D.No.3596/04 dated 27.12.2004. 47. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, respondent No.3 is directed to advice the contractors not to change the labour who were already working with the respective contractors in view of the memo No.CGM(HRD)/DS/AS.III/PO.VII/ Adm/D.No.3596/04 dated 27.12.2004. No costs. 48. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.