Dismissed

Keluth Dasma v. The a.P.Power Generation Corporation Limited

Telangana HC11 Nov 2011WP/29063/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners belonging to Scheduled Tribes challenged the failure of the respondent Corporation to give preferential recruitment to tribal labourers who worked during construction. The Court disposed of the writ petitions without granting relief, directing only that petitioners file a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh representation within four weeks.

Keluth Dasma Vs The a.P.Power Generation… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.29058 of 2011

¶2

¶3

29063 of 2011 Dated 11-11-2011

¶4

W.P.No.29058 of 2011:

¶5

Between:

¶6

B.Srinu and others.

¶7

…Petitioners.

¶8

And:

¶9

The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and others.

¶10

…Respondents.

¶11

W.P.No.29063 of 2011:

¶12

Between:

¶13

Keluth Dasma and others.

¶14

…Petitioners.

¶15

And:

¶16

The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and others.

¶17

…Respondents.

¶18

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos.29058 of 2011

29063 of 2011

COMMON ORDER:

These two writ petitions are filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not giving preference to the petitioners in the recruitment of unskilled Labour for maintenance of the VI Stage of Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Paloncha, Khammam District, who worked in the construction of the said unit since last 4 years, as bad, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, direct the respondents to give preference to the petitioners in the recruitment of

¶23

unskilled Labour in VI Stage of Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Paloncha, Khammam District. Since the issue involved in these two writ petitions are one and same, both the writ petitions are disposed of by way of common order.

¶24

The case of the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions, in brief, are as follows:

¶25

The writ petitioners belong to the Scheduled Tribes and their villages were effected due to the establishment and construction of the V & VI Stage of KTPS, Paloncha. The respondents 1 to 4 have entrusted the construction work to BGR energy Systems Ltd., and the said Contractor has engaged the labour including the petitioners. On 19-8-2000, the 5^th respondent has addressed a letter to the 3^rd respondent requesting to entrust the works to the Tribal Societies wherein he specifically mentioned that category-I Villages to which the petitioners belong to, shall be given first preference and other villagers are category-II as 2^nd preference.

¶26

It is their further case that during the construction of the V and VI Stage of KTPS, the petitioners were engaged as labour by the respondents through the contractors, ST registered societies and Village Tribal Development Agencies i.e., M/s. VTD Labour contract co-operative society Ltd.,KTPS V stage Construction TLCCS Ltd., Sri Bhavani ST Women Labour Contract Co-operative Society Ltd., the KTPS lV & VI Stages Construction Workers Tribal Labour Contract MACS Ltd., and Magadh Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.,

¶27

It is their further case that the petitioners were issued gate passes by the respondents 2 to 4 and they have also executed agreements in favour of the said Labour Contractors for providing unskilled personnel in the construction activity of the V &VI Stages of KTPS. Now most of the petitioners were engaged by the said contractors for construction and maintenance of the V & VI stages of KTPS.

¶28

It is their further case that the construction of V and VI Stages of KTPS has been competed recently and now the respondents 1 to 4 are making preparations to recruit unskilled labour for maintenance of the said units directly.

¶29

The petitioners and their societies/agencies have requested the respondents to give preference to them and other labour who worked in the construction of the said units for the last ten years. When the respondents1 to 4 did not give any response, the petitioners and other societies/VTDA’s have requested the 5^th respondent to pursue the matter with the respondents 1 to 4 for engaging the tribal labour who were effected with the establishment of the said Units and also who worked in the construction of V and VI stages of KTPS. It is their further case that the 5^th respondent has addressed a letter dated 30-8-2011 to the 2^nd respondent requesting to engage the tribal personnel for maintenance of the said units and also not to engage non-tribes as unskilled Labour in the said units which falls in Agency Area. In response to the same, the 2^nd respondent has addressed a letter to the 3^rd and 4^th respondents and others requesting them to issue guidelines for engagement of ST Personnel and allotment of maintenance works to the Societies/VTDAs in KTPS V Stage. The petitioners and their Societies/VTDAs. have requested the respondents to give preference to them and other Labour who worked in the construction of V & VI Stages of KTPS and the said request is pending with the respondents. It is also their further case that respondents 1 to 4 have agreed to provide about 300 posts of unskilled Labour to the Tribals of that area and requested the 5^th respondent to furnish the list of ST Personnel for engaging as unskilled Labour. While, so, the 5^th respondent has issued proceedings No.A.2/ITDA/973/2011 dated 22-10-2011 framing guidelines for engaging personnel and allotment of maintenance work to the VTDAs in VI Stage of KTPS enclosing a statement showing the number of members allocated to each VTDAs wherein the 5^th respondent has mentioned 3 categories of villages and the villages of petitioners mentioned in the category-I, but he allotted less number of posts to the said villages and allotted more number of posts to category-II and category-III villages which are far away from the KTPS units. Categories II and

¶30

III villages were not effected and the ST personnel of those villages never worked in the construction of V and VI stages of KTPS. In spite of the request made by the petitioners and their societies/VTDAs. the 5^th respondent deliberately discriminated or over looked the petitioners and others who worked in the construction of V and VI Stages of KTPS since last 10 years. Therefore, they filed the present two writ petitions.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners belong to the schedule tribe community and all of them worked in the construction of V and VI stages of KTPS since last ten years and that the petitioners’ villages are more effected than that of the many in the concerning villages and hence, preference must be given to them while making recruitments.

¶33

It is his further contention that they made a representation to the 5^th respondent requesting to consider their case and the same is still pending. While so, the respondents have recruited various categories overlooking the interest of the petitioners. Apart from that basing on the representation, 5^th respondent also addressed a letter dated 19-8-2010 to the Superintendent Engineer.

¶34

It is his further contention that in respect of the action initiated by the official respondents in considering the case of the petitioners, no further orders have been passed but the recruitment process is going on and if the recruitment is made, without giving preference to the petitioners, they would be put to irreparable loss.

¶35

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that to the extent possible, the respondentCorporation is taking part in protecting the interest of the tribal people of that area and apart from that in respect of unskilled workers also, necessary weightage would be considered.

¶36

I have perused the material available on record. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and particularly the submission of the Standing Counsel for the respondent-corporation and as the matter is under consideration with the authorities and the decision thereon is yet to be taken, the writ petitions are disposed of giving

¶37

liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation in continuation of representation already made, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

With the above observation, these two writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶39

____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 11-11-2011. Note: Issue CC in three days. BO Dvs

¶40

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶41

WRIT PETITION Nos.29058 of 2011 & 29063 of 2011 Dated 11-11-2011

Keluth Dasma v. The a.P.Power Generation Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keluth Dasma v. The a.P.Power Generation Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Srinivasa Rao Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Vc and MD

J.Bhaskar, Vs Apsrtc, Rep.by its Managing Director

M.I. Baig Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Managing Director

Duba Venkata Ramana Vs The District Collector/District Programme Coordinator

B. Srinu, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corp Limited

R. Srinivas Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Secunderabad Division