( 1 ) ALL these matters have been listed for disposal as they are all squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition no. 1246 of 1999 and batch dt. 6-8-2003.

( 2 ) THE said Writ Petition No. 1246 of 1999 and batch was disposed of after elaborately dealing with the issue involved and also by following the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Steel, Authority of India limited v. National Union Water Front workers.

( 3 ) WHEN the present batch is posted for disposal as covered by the judgment cited (1) supra the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, brought to my notice that an order was passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- labour Court, warangal, in I. D. No.-Nil- of 2003 in S. R. No. 4048 of 2003, dt. 20-8-2003, to the following effect;"the petitioners filed claim statement praying this Court to pass an award directing the respondents to absorb the petitioners, declaring that they were on rolls on 23-9-1996 and they are covered by the abolition of 33 categories of employment of contract labour in APSEB, in terms of B. P. Ms. No. 37, dated 18-5-1997, B. P. Ms. No. 260, dt. 19-12-1997 and B. P. Ms. No. 272, dated 31-12-1997, with all consequential benefits. Orders are pronounced as to registration of the Industrial dispute on the file of this Tribunal. (1) This petition is not field under any provision of law under Industrial disputes Act. (2) This petition is not filed to attract section 2-A of I. D. Act, as the employer has not discharged or dismissed or retrenched or otherwise terminated the services of the petitioners. This petition has to arisen out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination. So section 2-A of I. D. Act is not attracted. Hon ble High Court directed the petition to be filed before the Industrial tribunal for deciding the Industrial dispute. As Section 2-A (2) is not applicable, petitioners have to approach this Court by way of reference. It is certainly open for the petitioners to raise a dispute as contemplated under Section 2-K I. D. Act and the matter can be brought before the concerned Labour Court through a reference under Sec. 10 (1) of i. C. Act. So, the relief sought for by way of absorption of petitioners cannot be taken directly, except by way of reference. Hence, the petition is rejected. "

( 4 ) THE only question that arises for consideration is whether the Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court is empowered to entertain the industrial dispute on the application filed by the contract labourers in respect of 33 categories of employment mentioned under Section 10 of the Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and as identified by the A. P. S. E. B. in b. P. Ms. Nos. 36 and 37, dated 18-5- 1997 b. P. Ms. no 260, dated 19-12-1997 and b. P. Ms. No. 272, dated 31-12-1997, etc. , orders issued from time to time by a. P. S. E. B. , without reference of the dispute by the Government.

( 5 ) THE petitioners in the respective writ petitions claim to have been engaged as contract labour by the A. P. Genco. The government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its powers under Section 10 (1) of the contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) act, 1970 (Central Act 37/70) prohibited as many as 33 categories of employment that are being undertaken through the contract labour, through its order in G. O. Ms. No. 41, dated 23-9-1996, which also states that the orders for absorption of workers, if any, will be issued by Energy Department. Pursuant to the said G. O. Ms. No. 41 dated 23-9-1996, the A. P. State Electricity Board issued b. P. Ms. Nos. 36 and 37 dated 18-5-1997 providing for appointment on regular basis of the contract labour engaged in 33 categories referred to in G. O. Ms. No. 41 dated 23-9-1996.

( 6 ) THE claim of the petitioners is that most of them are working in different categories of the aforesaid 33 prohibited categories mentioned in G. O. Ms. No. 41, dated 23-9-1996 and the A. P. State Electricity board issued or