APGENCO Plea Dismissed | Andhra Pradesh HC Upholds Tribunal Award Directing Employment of Contract Worker | Says ‘Give Preference by Relaxing Age, Qualifications in Line with Constitutional Ethos’
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam has upheld an Industrial Tribunal Award directing the employment of a contract workman by a state power corporation, subject to relaxation of age and academic qualifications. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the power corporation challenging the Award and partially allowed the workman’s writ petition seeking its implementation.
The Tribunal’s Award, made in 2008 and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, required the employer to offer regular employment to the workman as and when new appointments are made, with necessary relaxations. The High Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal’s findings or directives. Stating the statutory framework and the constitutional ethos protecting labour rights, the Court instructed the employer to initiate steps for implementing the Award in its “true letter and spirit.”
While declining the plea for automatic absorption, the Court affirmed that the petitioner is entitled to preferential employment upon regular recruitment being undertaken. The matter pertains to a long-standing dispute initiated in 2005, involving the employment of contract labour in categories prohibited under relevant statutory notifications.
The case stems from two interconnected writ petitions. The first, W.P. No. 22675 of 2008, was filed by Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation (APGENCO) challenging an Award dated 31.01.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D. No. 90 of 2005. The Tribunal's Award directed APGENCO to employ the workman by relaxing age and academic qualifications during regular recruitment.
The second petition, W.P. No. 8617 of 2017, was filed by the workman seeking implementation of the aforementioned Award and declaring G.O. No. 697 of 2002, dated 03.02.2003, issued by APGENCO as void ab initio. He also sought absorption into APGENCO with effect from 06.12.1996.
The workman claimed employment as a Helper in the Coal Handling Plant under a contractor, Balaji Constructions, under the supervision of APGENCO’s Chief Engineer at Dr. NTTPS, Ibrahimpatnam as on 23.09.1996. He relied upon G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.09.1996, issued under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which prohibited contract labour in 33 employment categories within the erstwhile AP State Electricity Board (APSEB).
After APSEB was bifurcated into APGENCO and APTRANSCO, the government issued several guidelines for regularising contract labour, including B.P. (P&AG Per.) Ms.No.37 dated 18.05.1997, B.P. (P&G Per.) Ms.No.260 dated 19.12.1997, and B.P. (P&G Per.) Ms.No.272 dated 31.12.1997.
Despite claiming compliance with these preconditions, the workman was not absorbed. He initially filed W.P. No. 679 of 1999 seeking relief. The Court directed APGENCO to consider his case, which was eventually rejected. He then filed W.P. No. 23031 of 2000, which was clubbed with a batch (W.P. No. 13936 of 1999), resulting in a directive from the High Court to approach the Tribunal.
The Tribunal proceedings included oral and documentary evidence from both sides. The workman examined himself and the contractor’s manager, who confirmed his engagement on the relevant date. Exhibits included G.O.Ms.No.41, service certificates, attendance and wage registers, and gate pass applications.
APGENCO contested the claims, arguing there was no employer-employee relationship and that the contractor engaged workers on his own. They submitted no documentary evidence and produced only one witness, whose testimony was found to lack clarity and substance.
The Tribunal concluded the workman was employed in a prohibited category and eligible for consideration under the G.O. However, relying on Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union of Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1, it held that automatic absorption could not be granted. Instead, the Tribunal directed APGENCO to employ the workman with relaxed criteria during regular recruitment.
APGENCO challenged this Award in W.P. No. 22675 of 2008, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the workman had not approached the Government for reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In response, the workman filed W.P. No. 8617 of 2017, asserting that the Award had become final and needed implementation.
The Court examined whether a direct application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable. It recorded: "Apparently, the Workman along with the similarly placed persons filed Writ Petition No.13936 of 1999 & batch, before the High Court of A.P... The High Court... directed the workman and others to raise an Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal..."
The Court referred to Andhra Pradesh’s statutory amendment to Section 2A of the Act, stating: "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."
It cited P.S. Ramakrishna & Others v. Member Secretary, APGENCO, 2004(2) LLN 227: "The Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal... 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."
Regarding the Tribunal’s Award, the Court recorded that it had considered "voluminous record" including service certificates, wage registers, and High Court orders, while APGENCO "did not submit any documentary proofs to demolish the version of the Workman."
It noted that the Tribunal "within the touchstone of Constitutional Court mandate... arrived at plausible and reasonable findings..." and that APGENCO failed to show that the findings suffered from "inherent flaws or amount to grave error of law."
In assessing the claim for automatic absorption, the Court extensively quoted Steel Authority of India Ltd. It observed: "Mere issuance of prohibition notification by the State Government by itself, will not confer the absolute rights... for absorption." It stated that "preference shall be given to the erstwhile contract Labour / Workman, if they are otherwise found suitable."
On this basis, the Court held: "In the light of above ratio-decidendi laid down in Steel Authority of India (supra), the orders passed by the Tribunal is valid, reasonable and apt." It also recorded that "the Tribunal directed the APGENCO to employ the Workman, as and when, regular appointments are made... but did not order for automatic absorption."
Rejecting reliance on certain Supreme Court and High Court orders cited by the workman, the Court stated: "The facts and circumstances of those cases are distinguishable..." and reiterated that the present case was aligned with the Tribunal’s limited directive, not orders for direct absorption.
The Court concluded: "This Court is inclined to pass the following order" confirming the Award and dismissing APGENCO’s challenge.
The Court issued the following binding directions:
"Writ Petition No.22675 of 2008 filed by APGENCO is dismissed."
"Writ Petition No.8617 of 2017 filed by Workman is partly allowed by confirming the award dated 31.01.2008, made in I.D.No.90 of 2005 by the Tribunal, published in A.P.Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.522 dated 12.03.2008 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, they make regular appointment in APGENCO by relaxing the age and academic qualifications only."
The Court further directed:
"In view of the considerable efflux of time since the institution of I.D. in the year 2005, 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 31.01.2008 passed by the Tribunal in its true letter and spirit."
"No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Nagaraju Naguru, Standing Counsel for APGENCO
For the Respondents: Prakash Buddarapu, Advocate; Government Pleader for Labour (A.P)
Case Title: Chairman/Managing Director & Others vs. B. Veera Krishna & Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010309192008
Case Number: W.P. No. 22675 of 2008 and W.P. No. 8617 of 2017
Bench: Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
