This is a short order dismissing a writ petition filed by contract labour seeking absorption in the respondent corporation. The Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding vacancies precluded this Court from directing absorption and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 14598 of 2006
Dated: 18.07.2006
Between:
Votokuri Yadagiri, S/o Khasaiah, Contract Labour, R/o H.No.6-2-1333/1, Netaji Colony, Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda and others.
.... PETITIONERS
AND
The A.P. Transco, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad and others.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 14598 of 2006
Order:
The petitioners claim to be working as Contract Labours with the respondents-AP TRANSCO. The petitioners’ state that they have put in more than ten years of service and when the respondents have not considered their cases for absorption, they filed W.P. Nos. 14365 and 14893 of 2005, and pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondents considered their cases for absorption and issued proceedings dated 18.02.2006 stating that there are no vacancies. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents, having rejected their claim for absorption on the ground that there are no vacancies available at present, issued notification calling for applications for the posts of Junior Linemen on contract basis, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, they filed the present writ petition seeking to direct the respondents to absorb them in the posts of Junior Linemen.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-AP TRANSCO.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-AP TRANSCO, on instructions submits that all the 50% vacancies earmarked in the category of Junior Linemen/Wiremen in terms of B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997 were already filled up by eligible candidates and there are no further vacancies available in the cadre of Junior Linemen/Wiremen to consider the cases of the petitioners.
Inasmuch as disputed questions of fact are involved in the writ petition, namely whether still vacancies existing under the 50% quota earmarked for contract labours, and whether the petitioners are entitled to be appointed in terms of BP Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1999, it is not
proper for this Court to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners. The remedy of the petitioners, if any, is to approach the Labour Court and raise an industrial dispute and establish their case for appointment as Junior Linemen in terms of BP Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1999.
With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
__________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.
Date: 18.07.2006 Nsr/Ksr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can be directed to absorb contract labour into permanent cadre when vacancies are allegedly exhausted.
Whether disputes regarding service absorption and vacancy existence are appropriate for writ jurisdiction or industrial dispute mechanism.
Votokuri Yadagiri and others
The A.P. Transco
N.V. RAMANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
