Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.
The Chairman/Managing Director, A.P. Power Generation and Others - Appellants
Versus
A. Subba Rao and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 22668 of 2008, Writ Petition No. 8723 of 2017
Decided On : 20-06-2025
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Labour Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Maintainability of Industrial Dispute - Certain amendments empower workers to file direct applications to the Tribunal without government referral, affirming worker entitlement. (Paras 26, 35)
Facts of the case:
The Workman, employed as Contract Labour, sought absorption into APGENCO under G.O.Ms.No.41 after the Tribunal directed employment when regular positions arise. APGENCO contested the claim citing procedural discrepancies. (Paras 7, 14, 38)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the Workman worked in a prohibited category and was entitled to absorption. The award was justified based on substantial evidence against APGENCO's uncorroborated claims. (Paras 16, 32)
Issues: The key issues were the viability of the Industrial Dispute directly by the Workman and the legitimacy of the Tribunal's Award directing employment of the Workman. (Paras 22, 29)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion regarding the direct adjudication and the obligation of APGENCO to absorb the Workman when appointing, balancing legislative intent and judicial precedents. (Paras 28, 36)
Result: Writ Petition No.22668 of 2008 dismissed; Writ Petition No.8723 of 2017 partly allowed, confirming the Tribunal's order to employ the Workman upon vacancies. (Para 39)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nagaraju Naguru
For the Respondents: Chandraiah Sunkara, Prakash Buddarapu
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of writ petitions against the award. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details on contract labour regulations and apgenco. (Para 3 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. workers’ claims and apgenco’s counterarguments. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. tribunal findings and evidence assessment. (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. consideration of maintainability of the industrial dispute. (Para 22 , 24 , 27) |
| 6. discussion of the g.o. and tribunal rulings. (Para 29 , 31 , 33) |
| 7. conclusion on writ petition outcomes. (Para 35 , 39) |
OREDR :
1. W.P.No.22668 of 2008 has been filed by the A.P. Power Generation Corporation (herein after for the sake of brevity referred to as "APGENCO"), being aggrieved by the Award dated 31.01.2008 made in I.D No.127 of 2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur/2nd Respondent (in short "Tribunal") and seeking quashing of the same. The said I.D was filed by the 1st Respondent / Workman, which was published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.513, dated 12.03.2008, where under Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, passed an Award in I.D.No.127 of 2004 by directing the APGENCO to employ the petitioner as and when they make regular appointment in their Organisation by relaxing age and academic qualifications etc.
2. Whereas, W.P.No.8723 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner/Workman before this Hon‟ble Court seeking direction against the APGENCO Authorities to implement the Award dated 31.01.2008 made in I.D.No.127 of 2004 passed by the Tribunal, which was also published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.513, dated 12.03.2008, and to declare the G.O.No.697 of 2002, dated 03.02.2003 issued by the APGENCO as void ab initio and consequential direction to absorb the petitioner with effect from 06.12.1996 into the APGENCO.
3. For the sake of better understanding, the parties i.e., petitioner in W.P.No.8723 of 2017 & respondent in W.P.No.22668 of 2008 and the petitioner in W.P.No.22668 of 2008 & respondent in W.P.No.8723 of 2017 herein after referred to as „Workman‟ and „APGENCO‟ respectively.
4. In the above two Writ Petitions, subject matter revolves around one Award dated 31.01.2008 made in I.D.No.127 of 2004 passed by the Tribunal, published in the A.P.Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.513, dated 12.03.2008.
5. Whereas, the APGENCO had sought to quash the Award dated 31.01.2008 and conversely, the Workman is urging to implement the very same Award under challenge. There being a commonality of law and facts concerning these Writ Petitions, and also taking into consideration of common submissions by the respective Counsels, this Court ventures to pass Common Order in the above Writ Petitions.
6. Heard Sri Nagaraju Nagaru, learned Standing counsel for the APGENCO as well as Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned counsel for the Workman, at length.
Brief case of the Workman:
7. The claim of the Workman in the I.D. is that he worked as Leave Reserve Contract Labour in pump house operation under the control of Chief Engineer, Dr.NTTPS, Ibrahimpatnam running under APGENCO through a contractor by the name of Prabhath Engineering Works from the period 01.04.1996 to 16.03.1998.
8. It is also averred in Claim Petition in the I.D. that the Government of Andhra Pradesh by exercising the powers conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 issued G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996, whereunder, it prohibited/abolished employment of Contract Labour in 33 categories of employment specified therein, in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB).
9. Subsequently, APSEB was divided into APGENCO (which is entrusted with the activity of power generation) and APTRANSCO (empowered to Transmission, Distribution, Supply of Electricity). In Nutshell, APGENCO is the instrumentality of State Government which is amenable to Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
10. Inconsonance with the above stated G.O., the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board formulated guidelines in B.P.(P & AG Per.) Ms.No.37,
