Disposed

The Ap Genco Transco and Discoms Workers Union v. The A.P. Genco

Telangana HC9 Oct 2023WP/38615/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for contract labour welfare. The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that a subsequent speaking order by the respondents rendered the petition stale and directed closure of the case without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 29.03.2014, if so advised. Miscellaneous petitions stand closed. No costs.

The Ap Genco Transco and Discoms Workers… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 38615 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

The AP Genco Transco & Discoms Worker's Union (Regd. No.H-43), Rep. by . its General Secretary, 'A' Colony, KTPS, Paloncha, Khammam District.

¶9

. ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The A.P. GENCO, RgO. bV its Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director (HR), A.P. GENCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Kothag-udem Thermal Power Station (O&M), Rep. by its Chief Engineer, Paloncha, Khammam district.

¶14

The.State, [ep. by its Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour, Employment Training and Factories, #1-1-171A3, T. Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, Behind Devi 70 MM theater, RTC 'X' Roads, Ashok Najar, Hyderabad-zl.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus -

¶17

t. declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in directing the 3rd respondent to implement the Circular dt.O2-04-2O12 of the 2nd respondent, Memo dt. 13-09-2012 of the 2nd respondent, Memo dt. 11-03-2010 of the 1st respondent, Memos dt.2&03-2013, 06-02-2012 and 28-03-2013 of the 2nd respondent in favour of the contract labour working under his control or in his power generation station is neither sustainable in the eye of law nor facts of the case as illegal, arbitrary,

¶18

discriminative, unfair labour^practice, non-application of^{mind and} opposed to the^'doctrine of legitimate expectatlon',^{'doctrine of} promissory estoppel' besides violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and

¶19

consequently, direct the 1st^respondent to^{take all necessary steps for} the welfare of the contract^{labour as per statutory and constitutional} provisions; and also direct the 3rd respondent to implement the Circular dl.O2-O4-2O12 of the 2nd^{respondent, Memo dl.13-09-2012ol} the 2nd respondent, Memo dt.11-03-2010 of the 1st^respondent, Memos dt.2B-O3-2O13,06-02-2012 and 28-03-2013 of the^2nd respondent.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(W PMP.^{NO: 47991 OF 2013)}

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} direct the 1st respondent to consider^{the representation dt.07-11-2013of the} petitioner and pass appropriate directions to the 3rd respondent for^giving effect to the Memos, Circulars, Guidelines^{etc.,issued by the 1st & 2nd respondentand} also for taking all steps for^{the welfare of the contract labouras per statutory and} constitutional^provisions.

¶22

Counse! for the Petitioner:^{SRI PEETA RAMAN}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1to 3: SMT V.UMADEVI, SC FOR TSGENCO}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:^{GP FORLABOUR}

¶25

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^PULLAKARTHIK

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.38615 of 2013

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition is hled seeking to direct the^{l st respondentto} take all necessary steps for^{the welfare} of^{the contract labour as per} statutory and constitutional^{provisions;and also direct the third} respondent to implement^{the Circular d,atedO2.O4.2072 of the second} respondent, Memo dt.^{11.03.2010 of the first respondent,Memos} dt.28.C3.2OI3, 06.02.2012 and^{28.O3.2O13 of the second respondent.}

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Union has submitted that^incompliance of the interim order passed by this Court on 02.O1.2014, the^respondents have^passed a Speaking Order dated 29.O3.2OI4 and therefore no further orders are necessary to be passed in the^present Writ Petition.

¶31

Recording the above made submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the^petitioner to challenge the order dated 29.O3.2O 14, if it is so advised.

¶32

Miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, shall stand closed. No

¶33

costs.

¶34

sD/- K. VENKAIAH / ASS]STANT REGISTIAR^/ //TRUE COPY// O,/ SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

A.P. GENCO, Vidyutfr^{Soudha,Somajiguda,}

¶37

1 The Managing^Director' Khairatabad,^HYderabad'

¶38

2.TheDirector(HR),A.P.GENCO,VidyuthSoudha,somajiguda'Khairatabad', Hyderabad.

¶39

3 The Chief^{Engineer, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station(O&M)'Paloncha'} Khammam^district.

¶40

ar*A-

¶41

The Commissioner of Labour, Department of Labour, Employment Training and Factories, #1-1-17183, T. Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, Behind Devi 70 MM theater, RTC X Roads, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad-20.

¶42

One CC to SRI PEETA RAMAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶43

One CC to SMT V.UMADEVI, SC FOR TSGENCO [OPUC]

¶44

Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶45

Two CD Copies

BSR GJP

I t

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0911012023

ORDER

WP.No.38615 of 2013

.,. .. , ,-:: l l /\i
? B OI]I 2OT3
t,
<br>l
tl

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶56

WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

o** e6

The Ap Genco Transco and Discoms Workers Union v. The A.P. Genco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Ap Genco Transco and Discoms Workers Union v. The A.P. Genco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch. Rama Krishna, R.R.Dist. Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

T. Devadanam Vs Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

Md Yusuf (E No.675024), Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Tampon Corporation

P.S. Narayana, Vs Apsrtc

The Executive Director (Ghzandhz), Vs G. Rukmaiah

G. Rajesh Vs The a.P.Central Power Distribution Company Limited