[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kandula Venu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 July, 2025
APHC010000872007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3504]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 26786/2007
Between:
1. THE CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR,, A.P. POWER
GENERATION CORPORATION, VIDYUTH SOUDHA,
SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (O&M), VIJAAYWADA THERMAL POWER
STATION, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. SRI K VENU, S/O.VENKATESWARA RAO C/O.M.BABU RAO,
NEAR FENCING WALL, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA
THERMAL POWER STATION, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2. THE CONTRACTOR, FRIENDS ERECTORS, D.NO. 120,
B.COLONY, KONDAPALLI, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. SRI P MOHAN REDDY, MECHANICAL WORKS CONTRACTOR,
VIJAYAWADA THERMAL POWER STATION, IBRAHIMPATNAM,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, GUNTUR.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the
2
I.D.No.237/2002 dt. 16.4.2007 passed by the 4th Respondent in the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur as published in A.P. Gazette in
G.O.Rt.No.1424 dt. 20.6.2007 and quash the same and pass such other
order or orders.
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:
3
APHC010175772017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3504]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 8731/2017
Between:
1. KANDULA VENU, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, OCCUPATION: CONTRACT LABOUR, DR. NTTPS,
IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521 456, R/O D.NO.1-
27/1, NEAR VTPS MAIN GATE, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT,
TRAINING & FACTORIES (GAS-II) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE APGENCO, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING
DIRECTOR, VIDYUTH SOUDHA, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (O&M), VTPS, IBRAHIMPATNAM - 521
456, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 an appropriate Writ, Order or - Direction,
preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the
part of the Respondents in implementing the Award passed by the Labour
Court, Guntur in I.D.No.237/2002, dated 16.4.2007 and as made rule of
law vide _ G.O.Rt.No.1424, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories
(LAB.I) Department, dated 20.6.2007 by the State Government besides
4
declaring G.O.O.No.697/2002, dated 3.2.2003 issued by the Andhra
Pradesh Power General Corporation Limited is void ab initio,
consequently absorbing the Petitioner as Mazoor / Junior Plant Attendant
(JPA) with effect from 6.12.1996
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:
5
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
W.P.No.26786 of 2007 & W.P.No.8731 of 2017
Common Order:
–
W.P.No.26786 of 2007 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 16.04.2007 made in
I.D.No.237 of 2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Guntur / 2nd Respondent (in short ‘Tribunal’) and seeking for 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.1424, dated
20.06.2007, where under Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, passed
an Award in I.D.No.237 of 2002 by directing the APGENCO to employ the
petitioner as and when they make regular appointment in their
Organisation by relaxing age and academic qualifications etc.
2. Whereas, W.P.No.8731 of 2017 was filed by the
petitioner/Workman before this Hon’ble Court seeking direction against
the APGENCO Authorities to implement the Award dated 16.04.2007
made in I.D.No.237 of 2002 passed by the Tribunal, which was also
published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.1424, dated 20.06.2007, 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.
6
3. For the sake of better understanding, the parties i.e., petitioner in
W.P.No.8731 of 2017 & respondent in W.P.No.26786 of 2007 and the
petitioner in W.P.No.26786 of 2007 & respondent in W.P.No.8731 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 16.04.2007 made in I.D.No.237 of 2002 passed by the
Tribunal, published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.1424, dated
20.06.2007.
5. Whereas, the APGENCO had sought to quash the Award dated
16.04.2007 and conversely, the Workman is urging to implement the very
same Award under challenge. There being a commonality of law and
facts concerning these Writ Petitions, and also taking into consideration of
common 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 unskilled
Contract Labour in Coal Handling Plant operations under the control of
7
Chief Engineer, VTPS, Ibrahimpatnam running under APGENCO through
a contractor by name P.Mohan Reddy, Mechanical Works Contractor, 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 & G 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
8
19.12.1997 was issued specifically for absorption of the Contract Labour
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.6181 of 2000 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh
arraying the APGECO Authorities as the respondents. Where under, the
Hon’ble High Court on 17.04.2000 directed the APGENCO authorities to
consider the case of the Workman for absorption and 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 along with other
similarly placed person filed another Writ Petition vide W.P.No.10305 of
2002 before the High Court of A.P at Hyderabad. The Hon’ble High Court
dismissed the same giving liberty to the Workman to approach the
Tribunal for his absorption.
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.
9
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 had
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.237 of 2002 proceedings, the Workman got examined
himself as W.W.1 and marked Ex.W1 to Ex.W.26. He also got examined
the wife of the contractor as W.W.2 in support of his case. On behalf of
the APGENCO, M.W.1 and M.W.2 were examined and Ex.M1 to Ex.M5
were marked by them. Basing upon the above contentions, the Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court framed the following Issues which are:
(2001) 7 SCC 1
1
10i. Whether the Workman/petitioner working in second
respondent factory in one of the prohibited categories of work
which was prohibited under Section 10 of CLR Act 1970 issued
by Govt. of A.P.?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement/absorption in
second respondent factory?
iii. 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(wife of the
contractor), who engaged the workman in the APGENCO and her
evidence on record was that, the Workman had been employed as an un-
skilled / 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.26. It had also taken into
consideration of the evidence of the witnesses of APGENCO i.e., M.W.1
and M.W.2, who deposed on behalf of the APGENCO and the documents
Ex.M1 to Ex.M5.
18. The Tribunal had also observed that the said witnesses on behalf of
APGENCO did not answer in concrete manner, and they deposed that,
they doesn’t have any 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 W.W.1 and W.W.2. In a nutshell, the
11
Tribunal observed that, M.W.1 and M.W.2 pleaded unawareness and
have no knowledge about every aspect. It had finally come to the opinion
that M.W.1 and M.W.2 failed to substantiate the APGENCO’s version.
19. The Tribunal adjudicated the claim and counter averments and also
considering the evidence on record, came to specific finding that the
Workman worked in the APGENCO establishment as on 23.09.1996 in
coal handling plant prohibited/abolished category as an unskilled
labour/contract labour 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.26786 of 2007, 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
12
such premise, Workman filed W.P.No.8731 of 2017 before this Court,
seeking implementation of Award and his absorption.
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 on the ground 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 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 in favour 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 the
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:
13
(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, where under, 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
14
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. 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 Ltd2 which
dealt with 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
2
2004(2) Labour Law Notes, 227
15empowers 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…..”
28. 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):
29. 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
power under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation
16
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.
19. Sweeper
17
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.
30. 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. Where under, this Court did not
exercise its powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
however, directed the workman to approach the Tribunal. Thereupon, the
18
Workman rightly instituted Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal long
back.
31. 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, M.W.2 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.M.2), B.P.Ms.No.37 dated
18.05.1997 and B.P.Ms.No.272 dated 31.12.1997 (Ex.W-14) and
(Ex.W.17) respectively, Service Certificate (Ex.W.20), copies of
applications for Gate passes of the APGENCO establishment (Ex.W.21 to
Ex.W.25), Ex.M1 copy of order in W.P.No.10305 of 2002 which was
initially filed by the Workman and another, 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 redressal
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.
32. In the light of the above voluminous record, the Tribunal by
exercising its exclusive domain, determined the issues, which are
predominantly highly disputed questions of facts and the reasons arrived
19
by the Tribunal were based upon a comprehensive appreciation of the
oral as well as documentary evidence available on record.
33. In fact, the APGENCO merely raised the self-same issues without
demonstrating such finding of facts arrived by the Tribunal suffers from
inherent flaws and amounts to grave error of law. In view of above
aspects taking into consideration of the exclusive domain of the Tribunal,
this Court does not find that, there is legal infirmity or illegality in passing
the Award. More so, as stated supra the APGENCO is not able to
substantiate its assertions in the present lis.
34. 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”
35. 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.
20
Issue 3:
36. In Steel Authority of India Ltd and Others Vs National Union
Waterfront Workers and Others (referred to above), a five (05) 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 the CLRA 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 mere3
(1997) 9 SCC 377
21ruse/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…..”
37. By a plain reading of the above paras of the Constitutional
Mandate, it is clear that 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 entitle the contract labour
to automatic absorption. In other words, a mere issuance of prohibition
notification by the State Government by itself, will not confer the absolute
rights in favour of the Contract Labour / Workman for his absorption into
22
the APGENCO Establishment. However, in the event of APGENCO
desires to employ regular Workmen, in that case, it shall give preference
to the erstwhile contract Labour/Workman, if otherwise finds fit. In such
course, the APGENCO by relaxing the conditions in respect of maximum
age and academic qualifications, while ensuring that the technical
qualifications remain unchanged.
38. In the light of above ratio-decedendi in Steel Authority of India
(supra), the orders passed by the Industrial Adjudicator is valid,
reasonable and apt. Therefore, the question of automatic absorption as
pleaded by the Workman is not entitled in view of the facts and
circumstances involved in the lis.
39. 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 pursuade 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
the APGENCO to employ the Workman, as and when regular
appointments are made in the organisation by, relaxing age and
23
academic qualifications etc., but did not order for automatic absorption. In
this regard, this Court places reliance upon the observation made by a
five (05) Judge 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:-
40. Having regard to the peculiar 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.26786 of 2007 filed by APGENCO is dismissed.
(ii) Writ Petition No.8731 of 2017 filed by Workman is partly allowed
by confirming the award dated 16.04.2007, made in I.D.No.237
of 2002 by the Tribunal, published in A.P Gazette in
G.O.Rt.No.1424 dated 20.06.2007 to the extent of setting aside
the rejection orders passed by the APGENCO and directing the
APGENCO Authorities to employ the Workman, as and when,
24they 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
Industrial Dispute in the year 2002, 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 16.04.2007 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:04.07.2025
Rns
25
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITIONs Nos.26786 of 2007 and 8731 of 2017
Date:04.07.2025
Rns
[ad_2]
Source link