Disposed

G.Rambabu v. The Chief Engineer (Operation and Maintenance)

Telangana HC9 Dec 2016WP/34690/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions by 51 labourers seeking preference for casual labour engagement at Kothagudem Thermal Power Station. Court rejected a mandatory direction to engage them given no employer-employee relationship and contractor non-appearance. Direction to consider representations granted subject to individual eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Respondents are not directed to engage petitioners, but they shall consider their request on representation.

G.Rambabu Vs The Chief Engineer (Operation… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION NOS.34690 AND 37998 OF 2012

¶3

COMMON ORDER :

¶4

The petitioners, 51 in number, seek a direction to the respondent-Kothagudem Thermal Power Station to give them preference while engaging contract/casual labour in the maintenance of the 5^th and 6^th stages of Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Palvancha, Khammam District by considering the service certificate issued by M/s. VTD Labour contract Co-op Society Ltd.

¶5

Smt. K. Udaya Sri, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, would point out, not without justification, that the contractor, under whom the petitioners claim to have worked, has not even been arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition; since the construction of the 5^th and 6^th stages of the Kothagudem thermal power station has already been completed, no casual labour is being engaged; and the petitioners cannot claim, as of right, that they should be given preference even while engaging the services of casual labour.

¶6

The petitioners cannot claim any right for appointment with the respondent-corporation, as there never existed any employer-employee relationship between them; and the mere fact that their services were engaged by the contractor does not entitle them to claim that the principal employer should continue their services. No relief can, therefore, be granted directing the respondents to engage the services of the petitioners.

¶7

Sri C. Damodar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, even now, casual labourers are being engaged for the

¶8

¶9

maintenance of the project; and as the petitioners have the necessary experience, nothing prevents the respondent-corporation from considering them for being engaged as casual labour. While no direction can be issued to the respondent-corporation to engage the services of the petitioners, I have no reason to doubt that on a representation being made by the petitioners, and if the respondent is engaging casual labour from time to time, their request shall also be considered in accordance with law.

¶10

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petitions are closed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶11

________________________________
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ
Date: 09.12.2016
MRKR

G.Rambabu v. The Chief Engineer (Operation and Maintenance)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Rambabu v. The Chief Engineer (Operation and Maintenance)

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

M/s. Alfa Laval (India) Limited, Vs M/s. Anrak Aluminium Limited

S. Anjaiah, Vs Apsrtc Represented by its Vice-chairman and Managing

Mr.S. Mohd Yakub Vs Tata Communications payment Solutions limited

Dasari Maria Das S/o.Late Mataiah Vs The Director of School Education

Gunnam Kondaiah Vs Ap southern Power Distribution co.Ltd., rep.by its

V.Dharma Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation