Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
B.Veerakrishna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 20 June, 2025
1
APHC010309192008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3504]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 22675/2008
Between:
The Chairman/Managing Director and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
B. Veera Krishna and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. Nagaraju Naguru,Standing Counsel For APGENCO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LABOUR
2. PRAKASH BUDDARAPU
The Court made the following:
2
APHC010426952017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3504]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 8617/2017
Between:
B.Veera Krishna, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PRAKASH BUDDARAPU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Nagaraju Naguru,Standing Counsel For APGENCO
2. GP FOR LABOUR (AP)
The Court made the following:
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITIONs Nos.22675 of 2008 and 8617 of 2017
Common Order:
W.P.No.22675 of 2008 has been filed by the A.P.Power Generation
Corporation (herein after for the sake of brevity referred to as
‘APGENCO’), being aggrieved by the Award dated 31.01.2008 made in
I.D.No.90 of 2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Guntur / 2nd Respondent (in short ‘Tribunal’) and seeking quashing of the
same. The said I.D. was filed by the 1st Respondent / Workman, which
was published in the A.P.Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.522, dated 12.03.2008,
where under Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, passed an Award in
I.D.No.90 of 2005, directing the APGENCO to employ the petitioner as
and when they make regular appointment in their Organization by
relaxing age and academic qualifications.
2. Whereas, W.P.No.8617 of 2017 was filed by the
petitioner/Workman before this Hon’ble Court, seeking direction against
the APGENCO Authorities to implement the Award dated 31.01.2008
made in I.D.No.90 of 2005 passed by the Tribunal, which was also
published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.522,dated 12.03.2008, and to
declare the G.O.No.697 of 2002, dated 03.02.2003 issued by the
APGENCO as void ab initio and consequential direction to absorb the
petitioner with effect from 06.12.1996 into the APGENCO.
4
3. For the sake of better understanding, the parties i.e., petitioner in
W.P.No.8617 of 2017 & respondent in W.P.No.22675 of 2008 and the
petitioner in W.P.No.22675 of 2008 & respondent in W.P.No.8617 of 2017
herein after referred to as ‘Workman’ and ‘APGENCO’ respectively.
4. In the above two Writ Petitions, subject matter revolves around one
Award dated 31.01.2008 made in I.D.No.90 of 2005 passed by the
Tribunal, published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.522,dated
12.03.2008.
5. Whereas, the APGENCO had sought to quash the Award dated
31.01.2008 and conversely, the Workman is urging to implement the very
same Award under challenge. There being a commonality of facts and
law concerning these Writ Petitions, and also taking into consideration of
submissions by the respective Counsels, this Court ventures to pass
Common Order in the above Writ Petitions.
6. Heard Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned Standing counsel for the
APGENCO as well as Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned counsel for the
Workman, at length.
Brief case of the Workman:
7. The claim of the Workman in the I.D. is that he worked as a Helper
in the Coal Handling plant as Coal Breaker under the control of Chief
5
Engineer, Dr.NTTPS, Ibrahimpatnam, running under APGENCO through
a contractor by the name of Balaji Constructions as on 23.09.1996.
8. It is also averred in Claim Petition in the I.D. that the Government of
Andhra Pradesh by exercising the powers conferred under Sub-Section
(1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 issued G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996, whereby employment of
contract labour in 33 categories of employment specified therein was
prohibited/abolished in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity
Board (APSEB).
9. Subsequently, APSEB was divided into APGENCO (which is
entrusted with the activity of power generation) and APTRANSCO
(empowered to Transmission, Distribution, Supply of Electricity). In
Nutshell, APGENCO is the instrumentality of State Government which is
amenable to Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
10. Inconsonance with the above stated G.O., the erstwhile Andhra
Pradesh State Electricity Board formulated guidelines in B.P.(P& AG Per.)
Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997 in respect of appointment of Contract Labour
engaged against the said 33 prohibited/abolished categories of
employment in A.P State Electricity Board by prescribing the appointment
procedure. Later on, another B.P.(P& G Per.) Ms.No.260 dated
19.12.1997 was issued specifically for absorption of the Contract Labour
6
engaged against the above said 33 prohibited/abolished categories,
which are mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996.
Subsequently, another B.P.(P&G Per.) Ms.No.272, dated 31.12.1997 was
also issued.
11. It is the further case of the Workman that inspite of having pre-
requisites, he was not absorbed into service by the APGENCO, as such,
the Workman along with the similarly placed persons instituted
W.P.No.679 of 1999 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh
arraying the APGECO Authorities as the respondents. Whereunder, the
Hon’ble High Court, directed the APGENCO authorities to consider the
case of the Workman for absorption and as the same was not fructified.
12. Later on, the case of the Workman for absorption was rejected by
the APGENCO Authorities. At last, the Workman filed another Writ
Petition vide W.P.No.23031 of 2000 before the High Court of A.P. at
Hyderabad. The Hon’ble High Court disposed of the same on 14.08.2003
by clubbing with other batch of cases in W.P.No.13936 of 1999, with a
direction to the Workman, to approach the Tribunal for his absorption and
further the concerned Tribunal was directed to dispose of such dispute
raised by the Workman.
7
13. Hence, the Workman approached the Tribunal by filing Industrial
Dispute and sought for absorption into the APGENCO Establishment with
all consequential benefits. Thus, the I.D. was emanated.
Counter Averments of the APGENCO:
14. Conversely, APGENCO filed its counter inter alia contending that
the deployment of the Workman and others through contractor was on
their own accord and it was not requisitioned by the APGENCO. It was
pleaded that there was no Master and Servant relationship between the
Workmen and APGENCO.
15. It is further version of the APGENCO that, the workman was not on
rolls as on the requisite date and did not fulfil the conditions prescribed in
B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997 and B.P.Ms.No.272, dated 31.12.1997.
Therefore, the Workman is not eligible for absorption. It is also
contended that the Workman is not entitled for absorption in view of
decision held in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. National Union of
Waterfront Workers1. Accordingly, the claim filed by the workman has
been resisted.
Summary of the Industrial Dispute:
16. In I.D.No.90 of 2005 proceedings, the Workman got examined
himself as W.W.1 and marked Ex.W1 to Ex.W10. He also got examined
(2001) 7 SCC 1
1
8
the Manager of the contractor as W.W.2 in support of his case. On behalf
of the APGENCO, M.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked
by them. Basing upon the above contentions, the Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court framed the following Issues which are:
i. Whether the Workman/petitioner worked in any one of the 33
abolished categories as contract labour as on 23.09.1996?
ii. To what relief?
17. The Tribunal had gone through the evidence of W.W.1(Workman),
who during his evidence, reiterated the assertions made in the claim
petition. It had also gone through the evidence of W.W.2(Manager of
Contractor), who engaged the workman in the APGENCO and his
evidence on record was that, the Workman had been employed as a
Contract Labour in APGENCO Establishment as on 23.09.1996. The
Tribunal further examined the documentary evidence marked on behalf of
the Workman i.e., Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.10. It had also taken into consideration
of the sole witness evidence of APGENCO, however, no documentary
evidence was submitted by them to substantiate their version.
18. The Tribunal had also observed that the said witness on behalf of
the APGENCO did not answer in concrete manner, and he deposed that,
he has no knowledge as to whether the workman was employed in the
prohibited/abolished category, and further pleaded unawareness to the
case asserted in the claim petition as well as the documentary evidences
submitted by the W.W.1 and W.W.2. In a Nutshell, the Tribunal observed
9
that, M.W.1 pleaded unawareness and has no knowledge about every
aspect. It had finally come to the opinion that M.W.1 failed to substantiate
the APGENCO’s version.
19. The Tribunal adjudicated the claim and counter averments and
after considering the evidence on record, came to specific finding that the
Workman worked in the APGENCO establishment as on 23.09.1996 in
Coal Breaking prohibited/abolished category as a Coal Breaker and also
observed that Workman is entitled for absorption. However, the Tribunal
relying upon the dictum of Steel Authority of India (supra) passed the
Award and the relevant portion of the same is read as under:
“…….In the result, petition is allowed. The Rejection
order passed by the respondent is set aside. Respondents
are directed to employ the petitioner as and when they
make regular appointments in their organisation by
relaxing age and academic qualifications etc. Award is
passed accordingly.”
20. Thus, the said Award has been challenged by the APGENCO
through W.P.No.22675 of 2008, seeking to set aside, wherein, this Court
granted interim orders against the I.D. Award. And the Workman was
under the mistaken impression that the Award passed by the Tribunal had
attained finality, but it was not being implemented by the APGENCO. On
such premise, Workman filed W.P.No.8617 of 2017 before this Court,
seeking implementation of the Industrial Award and his absorption.
10
Submissions advanced by the respective Counsels:
21. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APGENCO at the
outset, raised the point about the maintainability of very Industrial Dispute
before the Tribunal. It was contended that the Contract Labour /
Workman directly filed the dispute, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 for absorption, without approaching the Government
under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore
the dispute is not valid. Hence, very proceedings are liable to be set
aside. He further contended that although Workman did not fulfil the
conditions laid down in the G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996, the Tribunal
had erroneously passed the Award infavour of the Workman. Hence,
Award is not valid.
22. Conversely, the learned counsel for the Workman submits that the
Tribunal ought to have extended the automatic absorption to Workmen
with all consequential benefits from the year 1996 onwards. The learned
counsel for the Workman has not stretched his submissions in respect of
remaining aspects.
Analysis:
23. In the light of above rival submissions, this Court is formulating the
following issues for consideration in the present lis:
11
(i) Whether the initiation of Industrial Dispute U/s 2A (2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly by the Contract
Workman Labour before the Tribunal without reference by
the Government under Section 10-1 (c) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is maintainable or not?
(ii) Whether the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court is liable to be interfered or not?
(iii) Whether the workman is entitled for automatic absorption
into the APGENCO Establishment or not?
Issue (i):-
24. Apparently, the Workman along with the similarly placed persons
filed Writ Petition No.13936 of 1999 & batch, before the High Court of A.P
at Hyderabad, whereunder, they challenged the rejection of absorption
orders passed against them by the APGENCO. The High Court by
clubbing together the similar cases, and also by relying on the Judgment
of Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited case referred to supra,
passed the common orders, permitting the Workman and others to raise
an Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal about their claim and also further
directed the concerned Tribunal to dispose of the same as early as
possible.
25. Accordingly, the Workman rightly approached the Tribunal in terms
of specific orders of the High Court only. In this context, it is apt to note
that, the State of Andhra Pradesh also brought an amendment vide A.P
12
Act (32 of 87), Section 2 (27.07.1987) to the Section 2A of the Industrial
Disputes Act,1947 and Sub-Section (2), which is extracted hereunder:
“(2) Notwithstanding anything in S.10, any such
workman as in specified in Sub-sec.(1) may, make an
application in the prescribed manner direct to the Labour
Court for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein; and
on receipt of such application, the Labour Court shall have
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any matter in the dispute, as if
it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in
accordance with the provisions of this, Act; and accordingly
all the provisions of shall apply in relation to such dispute as
they apply in relation to any other industrial dispute.”
26. Thus, in view of A.P.State Amendment, which states that
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, any Workman may directly make an application to the
Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute .
27. Infact, in the instant case, while deciding the preliminary issue, the
Tribunal by its Order dated 30.03.2007, held that the petition filed by the
workman is treated as reference under Section 10-1 (c) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
28. In this context, it is appropriate to refer the dictum of unified High
Court at Hyderabad in P.S Ramakrishna & Others Vs Member
Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd 2which
2
2004(2) Labour Law Notes, 227
13
dealt the very same issue and arrived its unequivocal findings in the
following manner:
“……19. The Legislature, the Executive and the
judiciary are the three organs of the State. The Act empowers
the appropriate Government to refer a dispute to the Tribunal
But, it cannot be said that Courts are not empowered to refer
a dispute for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal as the act
of the Court is also the act of the State.
20. Further S.2A (2) has been inserted by the State of
Andhra Pradesh, stating that notwithstanding anything
contained in S.10 of the Act, any workman may make an
application directly to the Labour Court for adjudication of the
dispute Therefore, there is yet another reason where the
Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court cannot refuse to
entertain the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner as laid
down by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra,
which is binding on the Labour Courts or the Tribunals as the
case may be.
21. Hence, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as the
case may be, is bound to entertain the dispute raised by the
petitioners pursuant to the orders of this Court, treating it as a
reference made under S.10(1) of the Act…..”
29. Therefore, in view of the above reasons the filing of the I.D directly
by the Workman before the Tribunal is rightly maintainable.
Issue (ii):
30. Coming to the second issue, the central point in the Workman case
rests on G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.09.1996 issued by the Government of
A.P. The said G.O. issued by the Government of A.P. by exercising its
14
power under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970, so as to benefit the Contract Labour and prohibit
the employment of Contract Labour in 33 categories in the A.P State
Electricity Board. The said categories are as follows:-
1. Hospital Workers.
2. Coal Plant Operations.
3. Soot blowing Operations.
4. Ash Plant Operations.
5. Breaking of Coal.
6. Boulders of Grid.
7. Coal feeding to units through reclamation grids of conveyor.
8. Crusher House Operations.
9. Grid Jam Cleaning at Wagon trippler and Coal Plant.
10. Al Feeder Operations.
11. Hydrogen Plant Operations.
12. Water Boys.
13. Auxilatory A.C. Plants.
14. Jam Removers.
15. Mixing of Chemicals.
16. Collection of Samples.
17. Stacker.
18. Reclaimers.
15
19. Sweeper.
20. Sanitary Mazdoors.
21. Scavengers.
22. Pump House Operations.
23. Electricians.
24. Coal Mill.
25. Burner Floor.
26. Raw Water Pump Operations.
27. Water Treatment.
28. Dust Electro Static Operations
29. Otis Elevator Plant Maintenance.
30. Instruments.
31. Helpers.
32. Pulverising Mills.
33. Lab Assistants.
31. By relying upon the above said G.O. as well as its consequential
guidelines framed thereon to absorb the Contract Labours into the
Establishment, the workman, by stating his suitability, sought for
absorption into the APGENCO Establishment. The workman initially
approached the Hon’ble High Court, by challenging the rejection of
absorption orders into APGENCO. Whereunder, this Court did not
exercise its powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
16
but however, directed the workman to approach the Tribunal. Thereupon,
the Workman rightly instituted Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal long
back.
32. The Workman also placed his evidence as well as documentary
proofs to substantiate his assertions. Similarly, the APGENCO resisted
the said claim of the workman. But the Tribunal by pursuing the
respective pleadings, depositions (W.W.1, W.W.2 pertaining to the
Workman as well as M.W.1 pertaining to APGENCO) as well as the
documentary evidence i.e., G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996 issued by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh (Ex.W.1), B.P.Ms.No.37 dated
18.05.1997 and B.P.Ms.No.272 dated 31.12.1997 (Ex.W-2) and (Ex.W-3)
respectively, Service Certificates(Ex.W.4 and Ex.W.5), Attendance
Register (Ex.W.6), Copy of Wage Register (Ex.W.7), Application for
issuing Gate passes of the APGENCO establishment (Ex.W.8), Copy of
order in W.P.No.13936 of 1999(Ex.W.9) which was initially filed by the
Workman and others, before the High Court of A.P challenging the
inaction of APGENCO in absorbing the workman, where under, the
Workman was directed to approach the Tribunal for redressel of his
grievance after taking into consideration the fact that the APGENCO, did
not submit any documentary proofs to demolish the version of the
Workman. Authorization letter given to S.A.Gani (Ex.W.10).
17
33. In light of the above voluminous record, the Tribunal by exercising
its exclusive domain, determined the issues, which predominantly
involved highly disputed questions of facts. The reasons arrived by the
Tribunal were based upon a comprehensive appreciation of oral as well
as documentary evidence available on record.
34. Infact, the APGENCO merely raised the self-same issues without
demonstrating that findings of fact arrived by the Tribunal suffer from
inherent flaws or amount to grave error of law. In view of above aspects
and taking into consideration of the exclusive domain of the Tribunal, this
Court do not find any legal infirmity or illegality in passing of the Award.
More so, as stated supra the APGENCO has failed to substantiate its
assertions in the present lis.
35. The Tribunal consciously by following the case of the Steel
Authority of India Ltd.(referred above) in its true letter and spirit decision
only, had passed the Award in the instant case, the relevant portion of
which reads as under:
“…..In the result, petition is allowed. The Rejection
order passed by the respondent is set aside.
Respondents are directed to employ the petitioner as
and when they make regular appointments in their
organisation by relaxing age and academic
qualifications etc. Award is passed accordingly”
18
36. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the Tribunal
within the touchstone of Constitutional Court mandate made in the case
of Steel Authority of India(referred supra), arrived at plausible and
reasonable findings pertaining to the disputed questions of facts in the lis.
Issue 3:
37. In Steel Authority of India Ltd and Others Vs National Union
Waterfront Workers and Others (referred to above), a Five Judge
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970 along with its
object and intendment, by scanning the relevant facets of the Contract
Labour aspects, overruled the dictum held in Air India Statutory
Corporation Vs United Labour Union3 and in unequivocal words arrived
its findings. For the sake of comprehensive view, the relevant paras 125
&126 read as under:
“….125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus:
(1)(a) …………………..
(b) …..
(2)(a) ….
(b) ….
(3) ….
(4) ….
(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section
10(1) of the3
(1997) 9 SCC 377
19CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or
otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any
contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the
industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question
whether the contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for
the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of
the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere
ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial
legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit
thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a
mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to
be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall
be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in
the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as
may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6
hereunder.
(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of
the establishment concerned has been issued by the
appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract
labour in any process, operation or other work of any
establishment and where in such process, operation or other
work of the establishment the principal employer intends to
employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to the
erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if
necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age
appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the
workers at the time of their initial employment by the
contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic
qualifications other than technical qualifications…..”
38. By a plain reading of the above paras of the Constitutional
Mandate, it is clear that the mere issuance of prohibition notification by
the appropriate Government under Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, prohibiting the
employment of Contract Labour in any establishment, does not by itself
entitle the contract labour to automatic absorption. In other words, a
mere issuance of prohibition notification by the State Government by
20
itself, will not confer the absolute rights in favour of the Contract Labour /
Workman for his absorption into the APGENCO Establishment. However,
in the event that the APGENCO desires to employ regular Workmen,
preference shall be given to the erstwhile contract Labour / Workman, if
they are otherwise found suitable. In such case, the APGENCO is
empowered to relax the conditions relating to maximum age and
academic qualifications, while ensuring that the technical qualifications
remain unchanged.
39. In the light of above ratio-decedendi laid down in Steel Authority
of India (supra), the orders passed by the Tribunal is valid, reasonable
and apt. Therefore, the question of automatic absorption as pleaded by
the Workman is not entitled inview of the facts and circumstances
involved in the lis.
40. The learned counsel for the Workman placed reliance upon the
Order dated 31.01.2017 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.9793 of 2010 and orders dated 24.02.2022 in Writ Appeal No.1269 of
2017 of Division Bench of this Court, in an attempt to persuade this court.
However, after perusing the said orders, this Court finds that, the facts
and circumstances of those cases are distinguishable from the present
case. In both the above mentioned cases, the Tribunal passed the
Industrial Awards, directing the absorption of the Workmen therein into
the Establishments. Whereas, in the instant case, the Tribunal directed
21
the APGENCO to employ the Workman, as and when, regular
appointments are made in the organisation by, relaxing age and
academic qualifications etc., but did not order for automatic absorption. In
this regard, this Court places reliance upon the observation made by a
Five Judge Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India‘s case (supra),
which is extracted as under:-
“……126. We have used the expression “industrial
adjudicator” by design as determination of the questions
aforementioned requires enquiry into disputed questions
of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High
Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate
authority to go into those issues will be the Industrial
Tribunal / Court whose determination will be amenable
to judicial review…..”
Conclusion:-
41. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the lis and
also taking into consideration the Constitutional Mandate laid down by the
five Judge Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd.(supra),this Court is
inclined to pass the following order:-
(i) Writ Petition No.22675 of 2008 filed by APGENCO is dismissed.
(ii) Writ Petition No.8617 of 2017 filed by Workman is partly allowed
by confirming the award dated 31.01.2008, made in I.D.No.90 of
2005 by the Tribunal, published in A.P.Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.522
dated 12.03.2008 to the extent of setting aside the rejection
22orders passed by the APGENCO and directing the APGENCO
Authorities to employ the Workman, as and when, they make
regular appointment in APGENCO by relaxing the age and
academic qualifications only.
(iii) In view of the considerable efflux of time since the institution of
I.D. in the year 2005, and also taking into consideration of
Constitutional ethos, this Court expects that, APGENCO
initiates expeditious and effective steps towards the
implementation of the award dated 31.01.2008 passed by the
Tribunal in its true letter and spirit.
No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
______________________________
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J
Date:20.06.2025
Rns
23
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITIONs Nos.22675 of 2008 and 8617 of 2017
Date:20.06.2025
Rns