The contract labourer services cannot be considered for pension benefits as per the Pension Rules applicable to the petitioner-TANGEDCO.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the common award passed by the first respondent made in C.P.No.48 of 2010 dated 23.02.2011 and the order passed in E.P.No.9 of 2013 in C.P.No.48 of 2010 dated 30.01.2014 and quash the same.)

1. The writ on hand has been filed to quash the common Award dated 23.02.2011 passed by the first respondent made in C.P.No.48 of 2010 and the order dated 30.01.2014 passed in E.P.No.9 of 2013 in C.P.No.48 of 2010.

2. The petitioner is the Superintending Engineer-TANGEDCO. The petitioner states that the second respondent-workman was appointed as Helper in the services of the TANGEDCO on 23.04.1999 based on the proceedings taken pursuant to Justice Khalid Commission Report. The second respondent-workman was absorbed as a permanent employee and thereafter retired from service as a Wireman on 30.06.2006.

3. The second respondent-workman is seeking pension reckoning the period of service from the year 1980 to 1998 as a contract labourer had filed the computation petition claiming pension from 01.09.2007 to 28.02.2009. As per the Pension Rules applicable to the petitioner-TANGEDCO, employees who have completed 10 years of regular service are entitled to pension, whereas the second respondent-workman had put in the services of 7 years 2 months and 8 days and therefore, he is not entitled for pension as per Pension Rules.

4. It is contended by the writ petitioner-TANGEDCO that the second respondent-workman was not directly employed by the petitioner- TANGEDCO prior to 23.04.1999 and he was employed by a Private Contractor with whom the respondent-TANGEDCO entrusted its works of specified nature and for a specified sum.

5. Therefore, the claim of the second respondent-workman for counting of the contract labourer services cannot be considered. The first respondent has not considered the provisions of the Pension Rules and granted the benefit, which is in violation of the Pension Scheme as applicable to the petitioner-TANGEDCO.

6. Pertinently, the issue in this regard, more-so, the claim of the contract labourers to count the period was considered by this Court in WP No.10884 of 2015 and an order was passed on 08.08.2022 and the relevant paragraphs 2 to 4 are extracted as under:-

“2. The petitioner was initially engaged as Contract Labourer by a private contractor with whom the TANGEDCO entered into an agreement. Thus, the petitioner was not initially appointed in the services of the TANGEDCO, but, engaged by a private contractor. The TANGEDCO regularized contract labourers engaged by private contractors by way of implementation of certain schemes. Accordingly, the petitioner was absorbed in TANGEDCO services only with effect from 01.05.1999 and served till 30.06.2007. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not completed the minimum qualified service of ten years under the pension scheme, he was not granted with the monthly pension. Thus, the petitioner submitted a representation to count 50'% of the services rendered by him as contractor labourer under the private contractor between 01.07.1986 to 30.04.1999.

3. This Court is of the considered opinion that counting of 50% of services would arise only if an employee served in the TANGEDCO establishment and the said provision would not be applicable in respect of contract labourers, who were engaged by private contractors and was working under the said contractor. The petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules of TANGEDCO. He was engaged as a contract labourer and therefore, the services under the private contractor cannot be construed as qualified service for the purpose of counting of 50% of services.

4. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order in W.A.(MD) No.785 of 2015 dated 28.10.2015 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

"5. We would have a