M.Viswanatha Reddy, vs The Andhra Pradesh Generation ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8398 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

                      Writ Petition No.25651 of 2007

ORDER:

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India the 8th writ petitioners seeking the following relief:

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or a Writ more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioners in the Unit of the 2nd respondent corporation or any other unit of the respondents in the State of Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, consequently to direct the respondents to regularise, by absorbing, the services of the Petitioners into the 2nd respondent unit or in any units of the 1st respondent corporation with all benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances."

2. The case of the petitioners briefly is that all the petitioners

except the 8th petitioner possessed ITI certificate course in different

trades and the 8th petitioner is an unskilled person. All of them were

taken on contract labour by the 1st respondent from 10.10.1996 to

31.03.1998 in different categories of labour like electrical work,

boilers maintenance etc. They were paid daily wages by the

respondents through the contractor to whom the respondents have

outsourced.

(a) While so, Government of Andhra Pradesh have issued

G.O.Ms.No.41, Labour, Employment Training & Factories (Lab.II)

Department, dated 23.09.1996 prohibiting the employment of contract

labour in 33 categories in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board

mentioned in the said G.O. Despite the said G.O, the respondents have

engaged the services of the petitioners and some others and continued

their services uninterruptedly. Later on the representation of the

contract labours, a notification was issued in the daily newspapers on

16.10.1997 calling for interviews to be held from 16.10.1997 to

18.10.1997 for regularization of their services basing on the past

experience. All the petitioners and others attended the said interview.

Services of the some of the employees were regularized and services

of other employees were rejected by the respondent on the ground that

their date of initial appointment was subsequent to the date of

G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996. Questioning the said rejection and

not regularizing their services, W.P.No.11363/1998 was filed by the

Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project Staff and Workers' Union. The

said W.P. was disposed of on 17.09.2004 permitting the petitioners to

make a comprehensive representation to the concerned authorities

with a direction that the said authority shall entertain and consider the

representation and pass appropriate orders as per law.

(b) Pursuant to the said direction the Union submitted a

representation in the month of October, 2004 for regularization of the

services. A list of 63 persons was enclosed to the said representation.

Thereafter the 2nd respondent addressed 5 letters to several companies

requesting them to absorb the members of the Union pursuant to the

direction of the High Court. However, the companies have rejected the

plea of the board.

(c) In the meanwhile, the Government of Andhra Pradesh

proposed to construct RTPP Stage-II in the year 2004. The

respondents promised all the petitioners and others that their services

would be regularized as and when the work of Stage-II of RTPP was

completed. However, the authorities kept the aspect of quantum of

vacancies in the RTPP Unit-I and II as confidential though the

generation of the power in the Unit-I has commenced prior to the

filing of the present writ petition. In those circumstances, the

Government, on the request of the Labour Union vide

G.O.Rt.No.1525, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab.I)

Department, dated 08.08.2000, made a reference to the Industrial

Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The reference point was as under:

"Whether the action of Chief Engineer, R.T.P.P. (Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project) Kalamalla, Cuddapah District in not regularising the services of the 30 Contract Labourers (As per Annexure) though they were engaged in prohibited categories notified in G.O.Ms.No.41 dt. 23.09-1996 is justified"? If not, to what relief they are entitled?"

(d) The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur

served notice on both parties. The Chief Engineer (R.T.P.P.),

Kallamalla Village, Cuddapah, who is 2nd respondent in the present

writ petition, filed counter opposing the claim on the main contention

that the respondent never issued any appointment order nor

termination order to the contract labourers and there was no master

and servant relationship between them. The petitioners therein

worked under the contractors but not under the control of the

respondent. It is further contended that in the light of G.O.Ms.No.41,

dated 23.09.1996, prohibiting the engagement of contract labourers in

33 categories w.e.f. 23.09.1996, those contract labourers who were on

the rolls as on 23.09.1996 alone were eligible to be considered for

absorption and accordingly, the petitioners were called for interview

and they were not considered for absorption as they were not on rolls

as on 23.09.1996. It was contended that the petitioners therein joined

under contract on 10.11.1996 and the contractor entrusted them with

the work of replacing of clamps connection, jumper castles etc. from

01.10.1996 to 31.03.1997. Hence, they were not eligible for any

relief. However, the Tribunal considering the identity cards with

interview call letters of the petitioners and also the tenure of work

exceeding more than 240 days held that the petitioners worked under

the respondent management in skilled and unskilled categories and

they also completed more than 240 days. They were also covered

under G.O.Ms.No.41. It was further observed that the G.O.Ms.No.41

does not specifically mention that it is either prospective or

retrospective in operation except mentioning that the employment of

contract labour in 33 categories in the A.P. State Electricity Board was

prohibited. In that context, the Board's proceedings dated 31.12.1997

limiting the absorption to those persons who were on rolls as on the

date of G.O. is repugnant to its earlier proceedings. The Tribunal has

accordingly, partly allowed the I.D. and held that the petitioners are

entitled for reinstatement into service as regular employees with

continuity of service and attendant benefits but without backwages.

3. The submission of the present writ petitioners is that the award

in I.D.No.218/2000 favoured 30 employees who are similarly placed

with the petitioners herein. Those 30 persons were employed

subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.09.1996. The petitioners came

to know that the respondents are contemplating to regularize the

services of those 30 persons by relieving the petitioners, though the

petitioners' stand on the same footing except the fact that they have

not filed the I.D. No.218/2000.

Hence, the writ petition.

4. The respondents filed counter similar to one in

I.D.No.218/2000.

5. Be that it may, when the matter came up for hearing, learned

counsel for petitioners Sri S.S.Bhatt would submit that questioning the

award in I.D.No.218/2000, the respondents filed W.P.No.21947/2005

and the same was dismissed by a learned single Judge by his order

dated 16.03.2017 and the said Judgment was carried in appeal i.e.,

W.A.No.1269/2017 and the Division Bench of this High Court has

dismissed the said appeal on 24.02.2022. Learned counsel placed the

copies of the orders in W.P.No.21947/2005 and W.A.No.1269/2017

and requested to allow the writ petition in view of the covered orders.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents sought to argue that the

petitioners have not filed any I.D. and therefore, the order in

I.D.No.218/2000 and subsequent orders in W.P.No.21947/2005 and

W.A.No.1269/2017 will not enure to the benefit of the petitioners

herein.

7. On a careful perusal of the above orders, I find no much force in

the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. The

present petitioners and others were all appointed as contract labourers

subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.41. Their eligibility for regularization was

extensively dealt with and their case was allowed in I.D.No.218/2000

and the same was confirmed in W.P.No.21947/2005 and

W.A.No.1269/2017. The aforesaid orders apply with all its fours to

the present petitioners also.

8. Therefore, in terms of the orders in I.D.No.218/2000,

W.P.No.21947/2005 and W.A.No.1269/2017 and for the reasons

mentioned therein, this Writ Petition is allowed and the petitioners

herein are held to be entitled for reinstatement into service as regular

employees with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but

without backwages. The respondent authorities shall take steps for

placing the petitioners in suitable posts expeditiously but not later than

six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No

costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 08.11.2022 KRK / MVA