Telangana High Court
Apcpdcl.,Tsspdcl.,Hyderabad. vs A. Lakshmi, Hyderabad. on 9 April, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_37605 & 37636_2017
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION Nos.37605 and 37636 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioner-Telangana State Southern Power Distribution
Company Limited filed these writ petitions against the Award dated
29.06.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.2 of 2013 and
the Award of even date in I.D.No.3 of 2013. By the impugned Awards,
the Tribunal had directed the petitioner-Company to consider the
candidature of the respondents-workmen and appoint them by
absorption on regular basis in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 and 37 dated
18.05.1997.
2. The subject matter of these writ petitions being identical, they are
analogously heard and are taken up for disposal by this Common Order.
For the sake of reference, the facts in W.P.No.37636 of 2017 are taken.
3. Brief facts of the case, as contained in W.P.No.37636 of 2017, are
that the respondent-workman (A.Lakshmi) rendered services as Typist
in the petitioner-Company since 01.04.1996 as a Contract Labour
through various contractors. In response to the Proceedings issued by
erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) vide
B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997, she submitted an application to the
petitioner-Company seeking absorption in the Company as Typist. She
was called for an interview; however, her candidature was rejected by
speaking orders dated 19.09.2002. Initially she filed a writ petition, WP
No.33699 of 2010, however, she had later withdrawn the writ petition
wp_37605 & 37636_2017
NBK, J
on 04.08.2011 with liberty to raise adispute under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. As the conciliatory efforts failed, the matter was
referred by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal
registered the case as ID No.3 of 2013 and, after due enquiry, allowed
the case in favour of the respondent-workman by observing as follows:
"In the result, the ID No.3 of 2013 is allowed with costs holding
that the denial of appointment to the post of Typist/LDC-
Computer Operator by the respondent Management (now
TSSPDCL) is totally unjustified, not valid, legal and contra to
the policy and scheme framed under Ex-M1 by the Respondent
and therefore, the respondent is hereby directed to consider the
candidature of the petitioner for appointment by absorption on
regular basis in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 and 37 (Ex-M1) within a
period of three months from the date of publication of the
Award. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall comply all
the procedural aspects as is necessary and directed by the
respondent from time to time."
Aggrieved by the Award, the petitioner-Company is before this
Court with this writ petition.
4. Heard Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the
petitioner-Company; and Ms.Ambuja Mane, learned counsel for the
respondent-Workman. Perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company, while making
submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, mainly contends that Ex.W-5
(Service Certificate from Sri Datta Commercial Institute) produced by
the respondent-workman shows that she worked under APGENCO from
01.04.1996 to 31.05.1997,however, there was no company in existence
wp_37605 & 37636_2017
NBK, J
by name APGENCO; that she did not fulfil the basic condition of
B.P.Ms.No.36 which stipulates that consideration of candidature would
arise only if the candidate was on the rolls of the Company by the date
of issuance of B.P.Ms.No.36; that B.P.Ms.No.36 was later withdrawn
with retrospective effecti.e from 15.09.2006 but relaxation was given in
respect of the cases pending before the Courts; that the respondent
passed Speaking Orders dated 19.09.2002 in the case of the respondent-
workman; that the respondent approached the Court in the year 2010,
after withdrawal of B.P.Ms.No.36, and therefore the said BPMs No.36 is
not applicable to the respondent and therefore the Award of the Tribunal
directing to appoint the respondent is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the
Tribunal had passed the impugned Award after due enquiry and the same
does not suffer from any illegality.
7. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the
record, it is pertinent to note that the Tribunal, at paragraph 15 of the
Award, referred to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5064 of 1999
and batch, dated 18.11.1999, wherein it was held by this Court as under:
"The respondent-Corporation shall not make any distinction
whatsoever between the contract labour employed by a
licensed contractor and contract labour employed by an
unlicensed contractor for the purpose of consideration of their
case for absorption, selection and appointment into the regular
service of the respondent-Corporation in the categories
specified in B.P.Ms.No.36 and 37, in view of the authoritative
pronouncement of this court in Transmission Corporation of
A.P. Case (3 SUPRA).
wp_37605 & 37636_2017
NBK, J
The respondent-Corporation also shall not insist for an
order from this court in this regard in each individual case, as
the Corporation is bound to obey the law declared by this
court."
8. Further, it isrelevant to refer to paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the
Award of the Tribunal, which read as follows:
16. Although the respondent withdrawn B.P.Ms.No.36 dated:
18.5.1997-Ex.M1, under Ex-M2 but it saves the cases which are
sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court/Supreme Court/Any
other Court and therefore prima facie Ex. M2 is no way hurdle to
test the veracity of the dispute raised ON MERITS. So let us
have a quick look at the failure report given by the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad dated 22.08.2013 to
discern facts to test the denial of appointment to the post of
Typist/LDC by the respondent is justified or not. In the said
failure report last three paras discloses the following reason
and conclusion which are also absolutely supporting the plea
of the petitioner:
"The typist are not eligible to be considered for
appointment are engaged in Chief
Engineer/Operation/CPDCL, but not in Vidyut Soudha,
Hyderabad. Hence you are not eligible for appointment in
Vidyutsoudha.
As per the above 2 clauses his appointment is stated to
be rejected. At clause 3, the General Manager (Personal)
stated that for the reasons deemed that your case has
been considered in accordance with the directions of
High Court and that the orders are implemented in its
entity.
wp_37605 & 37636_2017
NBK, J
In view of the above speaking order it is clear that as he
is eligible for the post of typist the management is not
ready to appoint his as typist except the individuals who
got orders from the High Court only considered. The
applicant above is financially poor and he could not
approach the Hon'ble High Court to get the orders for
appointment to the post of typist. Denial of the request for
appointment as typist by the management is not justified
being eligible having all the qualifications as per the
guidelines issued in BP (P &G) No.36. Therefore, the
applicants case is a fit case for adjudication of the issue
in the court of Law that the issue admitted into the
conciliation in the interest of justice."
17. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, rules, guidelines
framed by the respondent by default and as natural corollary
leading to the logical conclusion that the sole reason assigned
by the respondent before the Conciliation Officer is casual,
flimsy, not just, valid ground and it can be said that the
rejection of the candidature of the petitioner and denial of
appointment of petitioner to the post of Typist/LDC by
absorption is in crystal clear terms in violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India and the action of the Conciliation
Officer and the respondent is highly arbitrary and not within the
standard parameters of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Whether the petitioner who was engaged
as contract labour and rendered services either in Chief
Engineer (operations)/APCPDCL or in Vidyut Soudha,
Hyderabad, it does not make any difference for appointment by
absorption especially when the petitioner has satisfied all the
pre-requisites for absorption into the regular cadre services
under the guidelines enumerated under Ex.M1. the respondent
ought to have considered the continuous length of service put
wp_37605 & 37636_2017
NBK, J
in by the petitioner, as well as unblemished conduct and
performance exhibited by the petitioner.
18. Further, it is rightly observed by the Conciliation Officer,
i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad, in the
failure report at the penultimate para that the petitioner is
eligible for the post of Typist but the management of the
respondent are not ready to appoint him as typist except the
individuals who got orders from the Hon'ble High Court only
considered. The applicant (petitioner) is financially poor and he
could not approach the Hon'ble High Court to obtain the orders
for the post of Typist. He also observed that the denial of the
request for appointment as Typist by the management is not
justified being eligible possessing all the qualifications as per
the guidelines issued under Ex.M1 and found the case of the
petitioner is fit case for adjudication of the dispute in the Court
of law. As already stated the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.5064
of 1999 i.e., Transmission Corporation of A.P case in crystal
clear terms directed that the respondent shall not insist for an
order from this Court in each and every individual case. Further,
the respondent shall not make any distinction whatsoever
between the contract labour employed by the licensed
contractor and contract labour employed by an un-licensed
contractor for the purpose of consideration of their cases for
absorption, selection and appointment into the regular service
of the respondent corporation. The post of Typist is one of the
initial recruitment cadre post enumerated under Ex.M1. Thus
the management of the respondent is totally not justified
denying the petitioner for appointment to the post of
Typist/LDC-Computer Operator....."
wp_37605 & 37636_2017
NBK, J
9. Further, the Tribunal, having considered the respective
contentions, observed at Paragraph 19 as follows:
"19. ........ From Exs.W4, W5, W6, W7, W8, and W9, it reveals
that the petitioner initially worked in mother Department that is
APSEB (Ex-W4), and thereafter he rendered services in
APCPDCL and therefore I find no grounds and merits in the
contention advanced by the respondent in this regard. Merely
because on account of reforms initiated by the Government and for
the sake of decentralization of powers, proper distribution of power,
easiness in the administration, four subsidiary DISCOMS were
constituted that is not a ground, much less justifiable reason for
denial of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Typist-LDC-
Computer Operator who is eligible under Ex.M1 scheme in all
respects framed by the erstwhile APSE Board with the permission of
the Government. For the sake of administration and jurisdiction if it is
necessary the petitioner can be absorbed in appropriate company
either in any one of the four DISCOMS or in APGENCO. Moreover,
it was also elicited from the cross examination of WW1 that the
petitioner is now working for DISCOMS which are subsidiary
companies of AP TRANSCO. Thus, absolutely there are no
valid, legal and justifiable grounds for denial of appointment to
the post of Typist/LDC-Computer Operator or suitable post by
absorption for the petitioner and this court has no other
alternative except to answer all the issues No.1 to 3 in favour of
the petitioner and as against the respondent. The fact that the
petitioner right from 1996 till today has put in continuously 21
years of service and rendered services to the respondent
without any blur or blemish deserves due consideration.
10. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal after considering Exs.W4,
W5, W6, W7, W8, and W9, held that respondent initially worked in
wp_37605 & 37636_2017
NBK, J
APSEB (Ex-W4), and thereafter rendered services in APCPDCL. The
Tribunal considered the direction of this Court in W.P.No.5064 of 1999
directing that the petitioner-Company should not insist for an order from
the Court in each and every case, and the Company should not
differentiate between the candidates based on licensed or unlicensed
contractor. The Tribunal framed three issuesand considering the oral
evidence of WW.1 and the documents Exhibits W1 to W24 on behalf of
the respondent-workman; and the oral evidence of MW.1 and the
documents Exhibits M1 and M2 on behalf of the petitioner-Company,
and appreciated the facts in proper perspective, and arrived at a well-
reasoned conclusion and answered the issues in favour of the
respondent-workman.
11. Having gone through the impugned Awards and also the
contentions raised before this Court in these writ petitions, this Court is
of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ petitions,
warranting interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. Accordingly, the writ petitionsare dismissed by confirming the
Award dated 29.06.2017 passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.2 of 2013 and
Award dated 29.06.2017 in I.D.No.3 of 2013. No costs. The petitioner-
Company is directed to pass appropriate orders within one week from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this order
shall be prospective, i.e., effective from the date of the order, and the
respondents-workmen shall not claim any retrospective monetary
benefits on account of this order. They shall, however, be entitled to all
wp_37605 & 37636_2017
NBK, J
consequential notional benefits from the date of absorption/appointment.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
09th April, 2025
Note:Issue C.C.Forthwith
b/o.
smk
