Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A.P.Power Generation Corp.Ltd., ... vs Prl. Secretary, Labour Dept., Hyd And 2 ... on 30 September, 2024
APHC010375692015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 19854/2015
Between:
A.p.power Generation Corp.ltd., Kurnool Dist & 2 Others ...PETITIONER(S)
and Others
AND
Prl Secretary Labour Dept Hyd 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M. VIDYASAGAR, ( STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO )
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LABOUR (AP)
2. M V PRATAP REDDY
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
-
The present writ petition is filed challenging the Award passed by the
Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.178 of 2012,
dated 02.01.2015.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.3 herein was
employed as Man Mazdoor/Helper in the petitioners' Corporation for the work
of maintenance of siphoning system in turbine pits of units 1 to 7 on
05.10.1996. Thereafter, he was terminated from the service by the
Corporation. Aggrieved by the same, claiming for reinstatement into service
with all consequential benefits, the respondent No.3 herein filed a petition
before the respondent No.2-Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court,
Anantapur under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, stating that he was
orally terminated from the service and it amounts to retrenchment without
complying the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
3. The petitioners' Corporation filed a counter before the Tribunal stating
that they have entered into agreements with various contractors for a specific
period depending upon the exigencies of works, the respondent No.3 is not an
their employee and; there is no employer and employee relationship between
the petitioners' Corporation and the respondent No.3. The Tribunal had not
accepted that contention, since the petitioner could not mark the agreement
copies before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the I.D, directing
the petitioners' Corporation to reinstate the respondent No.3 into service with
all consequential benefits except back wages within one month. Feeling
aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed.
4. When the matter came up for admission on 29.11.2016, this Court was
pleased to pass the following interim order:-
"There shall be interim suspension of all further proceedings
pursuant to the Award of the 2nd respondent in I.D.No.178 of 2012,
dt. 02.01.2015 and the consequential G.O.Rt.No.183, dt.
20.04.2015 issued under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, subject to the petitioners complying with the Section 17B of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
5. Heard Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Government Pleader for Labour for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
Sri M. V. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners' Corporation has informed
this Court that in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court, the
respondent No.3 is being continued in the service till date.
7. On perusal of the Award, it is evident that though the petitioner Nos.
2 and 3 in their counter stated that the agreements were entered into with the
contractors for a specific period depending upon the work of carrying out the
maintenance of siphoning system in turbine pits round the clock at Srisailam
right bank, no proof was produced to that effect. The documents that were
exhibited by the respondent No.3 and which were marked by consent goes to
show that the respondent No.3 worked under the direct supervision and
control of the petitioners' Corporation. Ex.W-1 copies of Attendance Register,
Ex.W-2 copy of Memo dated 16.04.2003 and Ex.W-3 letter dated 29.03.2007
revealed that the respondent No.3 worked under the control of petitioners'
Corporation. Ex.W-3 letter established that the respondent No.3 was under
the control of ADE/GENL/SRBPH. If at all, as contended by petitioner Nos.2
and 3, the respondent No.3 worked through contractors and the said
contractors supplied the respondent No.3 and other Workmen to the
petitioners' Corporation, basing on the agreements that were entered from
time to time, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 would have certainly produced sufficient
proof to that effect. But they did not do so. Also it was not the contention of
the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 that on expiry of the period of contract, the
contractor himself under whom the respondent No.3 worked disallowed the
respondent No.3 to enter into the petitioners' premises. The specific case of
the respondent No.3 was that he was orally terminated from services by the
petitioner No.3 with effect from 26.04.2012. No proof was produced by the
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to show that the agreement that was entered into by
the Corporation with the alleged contractor has expired on 26.04.2012.
8. Having considered the same, the Labour Court has passed the Award
directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No.3 into service with all
consequential benefits except back-wages within one month from the date of
publication of the Award.
9. Even as per the appendix, it can be seen that not even a single
document was marked on behalf of the petitioners. Admittedly, if at all the
petitioners had any case, they would have filed the agreement entered
between the petitioners' Corporation and the contractor to prove that the
respondent No.3 was never employed directly under them. As the petitioners'
Corporation has failed to furnish those documents before the Labour Court,
the Court has passed the said Award. But however, during the pendency of
the present writ petition, the petitioners' Corporation filed a set of documents
to prove that there was an agreement between the petitioners' Corporation
and the contractor to establish that there is no direct employer and employee
relationship between the respondent No.3 and the petitioners' Corporation.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has invited the attention
of this Court to a judgment passed in W.P.No.12408 of 2010, wherein under
the identical circumstances, where the petitioners' Corporation has failed to
mark any document in their favour to establish their case. Wherein, the Court
is constrained to set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and
remanded the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court,
Anantapur for consideration of the case afresh and pass a fresh Award in
accordance with law within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt
of copy of this order by giving an opportunity to both the parties. The Court
has also further clarified that both the parties are entitled to file additional
evidence, if any, before the Labour Court and contest the case.
11. In view of the fact that the Award of the Labour Court is of the year
2015, in pursuance of which the respondent No.3 is also being continued in
the service and the fact that the respondent No.3 is at the fag end of his
superannuation, this Court feels it appropriate to remand the matter back to
the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Anantapur. But however, the
Labour Court shall pass a fresh Award in accordance with law within a period
of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by giving an
opportunity to both the parties. It is also made clear that the respondent No.3
shall not be disturbed from the respective post till the final disposal of the
Award.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
13. Registry is directed to remand back the records call for in the present
case immediately to the Labour Court.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, any, in this Writ Petition shall stand
closed.
__________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date:- 30.08.2024
SCS
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 19854 of 2015
Date: 30.08.2024.
SCS
