Disposed

The Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited v. M/S- Lakshmi Electricals.

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Mar 2023WA/277/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court held that the appellant contractor’s contract had expired, rendering the appeal infructuous. The Court agreed with the lower judge that the government memo could not legally prevent the contractor from engaging personnel for its operational period.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of as infructuous due to the expiry of the contract and appointment of a new contractor.

The Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶3

AND

¶4

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶5

W.A.No.277 of 2020

¶6

JUDGMENT:

¶7

This writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated 22.07.2020 in W.P.No.16929 of 2019. By this order, the learned single Judge held that the reliance by the respondents on the Memo dated 21.10.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent is not correct and directed respondent Nos.5 to 7 not to interfere with the recruitment and engagement of the personnel by the contractor.

¶8

The writ petition filed by the contractor was allowed. It is alleged that as per the contracts entered into for Nidadavole, Ramachandrapuram and Amalapuram subdivisions, the writ petitioner was given a contract and that the contractor is under an obligation as per the relevant clause to engage personnel for operations. However, the learned Judge failed to appreciate that the contract period is already over

¶9

¶10

and that still a direction was given not to interfere with the petitioner’s engagement of the labour. Clause 29 of the agreement according to the learned standing counsel was misinterpreted. It is also pointed out that a Memo dated 21.10.2019 is issued pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 18.10.2019 which directed the following:

¶11

The Andhra Pradesh Government approval incorporating, "Andhra Pradesh Corporation Outsourced Services," under the Companies 2013 as organization, be the administrative Administration Department G.O. above. (Copy enclosed with). Hence, all the Superintending Engineers/ Operation are instructed not hire outsourcing staff either operators/ Computer Operators against the vacancies, vacant consequent upon selection Shift Operators/ Computer Operators JLM 11/Panchayat Secretaries as case may be, further instructions from Corporate Office.

¶12

Lastly, it is urged that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the decision reported in Steel Authority of India Limited and others v. National Union

¶13

Waterfront workers and others¹ .

¶14

1 (2001) 7 SCC 1

¶15

¶16

In reply, Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao argues that the order passed is correct. He points out that the contract agreement directed the writ petitioner to recruit people for the purpose of maintaining the sub-stations and for fulfilling the terms and conditions of the contract. He also points out that the memo dated 21.10.2019 specifically directed the Superintendent Engineers, Operation not to hire any outsourcing staff against the vacancies which fell vacant consequent upon the selection of the Shift Operators and Computer Operators as Junior Line Man Grade-II etc. It is pointed out that this memo is only prohibits the hiring of outsourcing staff for the vacant posts of Shift Operators, which arose due to the shift operators being selected as Junior Line Man only. Misinterpreting the said order, the entire recruitment is sought to be stopped. He also argues that even if the contractors change, the labour remain the same and therefore, continuation of the impugned order would be for the benefit and in favour of the labour. He also relies upon

¶17

Ganjikuntla Sridhar and others v. State of Andhra

¶18

Pradesh and others² in support of his submission.

¶19

2 2018 (1) ALD 560

¶20

¶21

In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellants argues that a new contractor- M/s. Abhinaya Enterprises has already been appointed for three circles and that cause in the writ petition therefore does not survive, particularly, for the writ petitioner-Lakshmi Electrical.

¶22

COURT: This Court after considering the submissions notices that the language used in the memo dated 21.10.2019 is clear. It is as follows: “all the Superintending Engineers/Operation are instructed not to hire outsourcing staff either shift operations/computer operators against the vacancies fell vacant subsequent upon selection of shift operators as Junior Line Man until further instructions from the Corporate Office’.

¶23

In the opinion of this Court, the single Judge rightly considered the impact of this clause and held that the action of the respondents in preventing the writ petitioner from engaging qualified and suitable persons to the sub-stations under the guise of the impugned memo is not called for and is arbitrary and illegal. This Court has to hold that the said finding is correct.

¶24

¶25

However, this Court also has to notice that the prayer of the writ petitioner is under the agreements referred to dated 06.06.2018, 24.05.2018 and 06.06.2018 which are for a period of one year and that the said period has expired. The contract of the writ petitioner has expired by efflux of time.

¶26

It is also apparent from the record that a new contractor-M/s. Abhinaya Enterprises has been appointed for the same operations in Amalapuram vide orders dated 30.06.2020.

¶27

Therefore, the issue in the writ appeal has now become infructuous, but it is held that the interpretation placed by the appellants on the memo dated 21.10.2019 is not correct. As far as the submission that the same employees are continuing even if the contractor changes, this Court is of the opinion that the same is not relevant for the purpose of decision in this case as the writ petition is filed by the contractor against the stoppage of employees.

¶28

The writ appeal is therefore disposed of as no further orders are warranted. No order as to costs.

¶29

¶30

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall

¶31

stand dismissed.

¶32

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

¶33

V.SRINIVAS,J

¶34