Vanga Ramesh vs Telangana State Power Generation ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4526 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4526 Tel
Judgement Date : 12 September, 2022

Telangana High Court

Vanga Ramesh vs Telangana State Power Generation ... on 12 September, 2022

Bench: P.Madhavi Devi

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                WRIT PETITION NO.35258 OF 2022


                               ORDER

With the consent of the learned counsel for both parties, this Writ

Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

2. The petitioner claims to have worked as Contract Labourer in

KTPP from 02.06.2015 to February, 2018 and he was allotted

Employees Provident Fund (EPF) No.NZ WGL 003127 0000, UAN

No.1007 8194 9065 and EPF deduction was made from his pay during

the month of November, 2016. In pursuance of the settlement arrived at

between the trade unions and the Telangana State Power Generation

Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') under Section 12(1) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Corporation agreed to

absorb/regularize the outsourced/contract personnel, who were working

as on 4.12.2016, and issued guidelines vide T.O.O.Rt.No.247,

dt.01.06.2017/02.06.2017 and though the petitioner fulfilled the said

guidelines, but the respondents have not considered the case of the

petitioner on par with other outsourced personnel in terms of the

modalities finalized for regularization of the outsourced personnel vide W.P.No.35258 of 2022

T.G.O.O.No.216/CGM (HR), dt.29.07.2017 and T.G.O.O.No.217/CGM

(HR) dt.29.07.2017. When the case of the some of the labour was not

considered for absorption/regularization in terms of the above said

guidelines, they filed W.P.No.20804 of 2018 and batch and a Division

Bench of this Court by common order dt.03.10.2018 directed the

respondents herein to undertake the process of absorption by

considering the eligible candidates, who were working as on 04.12.2016

and complying with other conditions of EPF deductions.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was working as

on the cut-off date i.e., 4.12.2016, and fulfilled the eligibility criterion as

per the guidelines of the Corporation dated 01.06.2017, his case has not

been considered for absorption/regularization, whereas similarly situated

persons were absorbed vide T.G.O.O.217/CGM(HR)/2017, dated

29.07.2017 and therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and

discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent -

Corporation to consider his case for absorption/regularization in terms

of the guidelines issued by the Corporation dated 01.06.2017 and the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred to above on par W.P.No.35258 of 2022

with these employees who were regularized vide proceedings dated

29.07.2017.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who

reiterated the above averments.

6. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Smt.

A.Deepthi, learned Standing counsel for the respondent - Corporation,

on instructions, would submit that if the petitioner fulfils the eligibility

criteria, the Committee constituted in that behalf, would examine his

case and take appropriate decision thereon.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20840 of 2018 and

batch, vide orders dated 3.10.2018, while considering the very same

issue, disposed of the Writ Petitions, with the following directions:

"12. Therefore in fine, all the writ petitions are disposed of to the following

effect:

(i) persons who claim that they fulfill the criteria laid down in the guide-

lines/orders issued by the Corporation / Companies, may approach the Committee and satisfy the Committee that they are covered by the Scheme and that they fulfill the eligibility criteria. The Committee may look into the same and take a decision within 12 weeks;

(ii) persons who were not in employment on the cut-off date viz., 04.12.2016 cannot either seek the benefit of the scheme or challenge the W.P.No.35258 of 2022

scheme. The scheme prescribing a cut-off date is a product of settlement reached under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The settlement was under Section 12(3) of the Act. Therefore, one of the conditions prescribed in the scheme viz., the cut-off date, cannot be challenged. Hence, the challenge to the prescription of a cut-off date contained in the scheme is rejected. However, these persons are given liberty to go before the Labour Court or any other appropriate Forum prescribed by any Special Enactments, if they have a right of absorption or regularization conferred by such Special Enactments;

(iii) persons who are out of the scheme on account of non-payment of contribution to the Employees Provident Fund, cannot also seek the benefit of the Scheme solely on the ground that the fault lay with the Distribution Companies. If these persons have any right conferred by any special enactment for regularization and/or absorption, they are given liberty to move the Fora prescribed under those enactments;