Dismissed

Ch.Janardhan, v. The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Telangana HC21 Dec 2011WP/33717/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners sought mandamus declaring entitlement for absorption as regular employees under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and GO.Ms.No.5. The Court directed respondents to consider the petitioners representation for absorption and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioners representation for absorption as regular employees and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Ch.Janardhan, Vs The Andhra Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 33717 OF 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ch. Janardhan & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. AP Central Power Distribution Co.Ltd., Red Hills, Hyderabad Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri M. Venkatram Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Energy GP for Labour

¶9

The Court made the following : (Order follows next page)

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 3 3 7 1 7 OF 2011

¶12

O R D E R :

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Energy as well as the learned Government Pleader for Labour.

¶14

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking mandamus to declare that the petitioners are entitled for absorption in the first and second respondents corporation as regular employees under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 as per the amendment made in the Andhra Pradesh and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to absorb the petitioners as regular employees of the first and second respondents and further to grant all consequential and attendant benefits and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶15

3. The case of the petitioners is that they are working as Contract

¶16

Labour in the first respondent Corporation are discharging the duties for managing sub-stations and also supply lines etc., for the A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited and A.P. Transco for more than 12 years continuously and they were being paid salary/wages by the

¶17

APCPDCL and AP Transco. It is stated that their names are on the rolls of the musters of the respondents-corporation and they were given EPF numbers. Their case is that the Government issued GO.Ms.No.5, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-II) Department, dated 241-2011 to the effect and the duties performed by the contract labours are very essential and necessary to the “main core activity” of the power distribution companies. It is the further case of the petitioners that since their work is permanent in nature and the duties performed by them are considered to be within the definition of “core activity” of the power distribution companies, they are entitled for absorption in the regular employment of the respondents-corporation.

¶18

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that having regard to the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and having regard to GO.Ms.No.5, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-II) Department, dated 24-1-2011, which was issued by the Government consequent to a report submitted by the Designated Authority to the effect that the contract labour engaged in the respondents-corporation and the duties performed by them are essential and necessary to the “main core activity”, they are deemed to be in the employment of the respondents-corporation as permanent in nature and therefore, they are entitled for absorption into employment in which they are working.

¶19

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would draw attention of

¶20

this Court that in similar circumstances this Court by an order dated 17-02-2009 disposed of WP.No.2360 of 2009, wherein this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners therein and to pass appropriate orders. In the said writ petition, the petitioner was AP Contract Labour Union, Regd.No.B-1996, and it sought for a direction for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent therein in not referring the petitioner’s application dated 9-5-2008 to the second respondent, for adjudication with regard to nature of work that is being carried on by Meter Readers-cum-Spot Billing Workers and other personnel of third respondent company, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Act No.10 of 2003 and consequently to direct the respondent No.1 therein to forthwith refer the application dated 9-5-2008 of the petitioner to the second respondent therein for the purpose of adjudication as to whether the work being carried on by Meter Readers-cum-Spot Billing Workers and other personnel of third respondent-company therein is core activity or not.

¶21

6. The case of the petitioners herein is that they are working as Contract Labour and the duties performed by them would fall within the ambit of “core activity” as contemplated GO.Ms.No.5, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab-II) Department, dated 241-2011, which was issued by the Government consequent to a report submitted by the Designated Authority to the effect that the contract labour engaged in the respondents-corporation and the duties performed by them

¶22

are essential and necessary to the “main core activity”, and thereby they are deemed to be in the employment of the respondents-corporation as permanent in nature. It is stated that the petitioners made representation on 28-7-2011 to the respondents wherein they sought for their absorption in A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Limited. The said representation is accompanied by a list of contract labours including the petitioners herein.

¶23

7. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents-corporation would submit that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, since the petitioners have submitted representation dated 28-7-2011 claiming for their absorption as regular employees of the first and second respondents, the aspect of absorption depends upon various factors, unless the contract labours system is abolished in which the petitioners are engaged as per the provisions of section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 the petitioners are not entitled for absorption.

¶24

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by virtue of AP Amendment made to the AP Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 the petitioners are deemed to be working against the employment in which the contract labours system is prohibited. Therefore, he submits that these are all disputed questions of fact with regard to the nature of the duties performed by the petitioners.

¶25

9. In that view of the matter, having regard to the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the fact that in similar circumstances this court by an order dated 17-2-2009 in WP.No. 2360 of

¶26

2009, disposed of the WP.No. 2360 of 2009, the present writ petition is also disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption as regular employees of the first and second respondents by passing appropriate orders on the representation dated 287-2011 submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

10. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of at the

¶28

stage of admission. No costs.

¶29

---------------------------------------JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH.

¶30

22-12-2011 I s L

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO. 33717 OF 2011