Absorption of contract labour on an 'as-is-where-is' basis excludes claims for prior service benefits; delay and laches bar belated attempts to assert such claims.

JUDGMENT:

This Writ Appeal assails the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4956 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri G. Allabakash, learned counsel for the appellant; Ms. M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II for respondent No.1, Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Power Transmission of Corporation Limited (TSTRANSCO) for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and perused the record.

Factual Matrix in brief:

3. The factual background, necessary for the adjudication of this appeal, is as follows:

i. The appellant/writ petitioner (hereafter "the petitioner") was engaged as a contract labourer (skilled worker) in the Electricity Department of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) on 01.05.1993.

ii. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.09.1996, prohibiting engagement of contract labour in certain categories. Consequently, APSEB issued B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 and B.P.Ms.No.326 dated 14.03.1998, providing for absorption of contract labour in abolished categories with service benefits from 06.12.1996 and pecuniary benefits from 09.12.1997.

iii. The petitioner’s case for absorption under the said 1997 scheme was initially rejected on the ground that he was supplied through an unlicensed contractor. The writ petitioner challenged the rejection of absorption in W.P.No.4209 of 1999, and this Court directed the respondents to consider his case without disqualifying the petitioner on the ground that he was supplied through an unlicensed contractor. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner was interviewed on 28.10.1997, but no further action was taken.

iv. The petitioner was eventually absorbed as Artisan Grade-II on 29.07.2017 on an ‘as-is-where-is’ basis under a settlement reached with trade unions under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the 1947 Act’) and was approved by the Government, which was expressly without service or pecuniary benefits for the prior contract period.

v. The petitioner superannuated on 01.07.2020, and filed W.P.No.4956 of 2021 seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner the regular service and notional seniority w.e.f 1.5.1993 and pecuniary benefit w.e.f. 1.5.1993 while extending such benefits to all other contract labour absorbed under the scheme of absorption vide B.P.Ms. No.36, dated 18/05/1997 and B.P.Ms.No.271 and 272 dated 31/12/1997 and B.P.Ms. No. 326 dt 14.3.1998 and thereby denying the petitioner the equal treatment and further action of the respondents in giving consolidate pay to the petitioner while fixing higher scale to all other contract labour absorbed under the same scheme is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allow the service benefit w.e.f 1.5.1993 and pecuniary benefit from 1.5.1993 as per B.P. Ms. 326, dt 14/3/98 as allowed to the other similarly Situated persons vide Memo No. CEE/O& MJDR NTTPS /Adm /C.3 /F. 8/D. N0. 2813/11, dt 14/12/2011 as per the orders of this Honorable Court in writ Petition No. 2179/2006, Dt 19/11/2010 and pass….

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the underlying writ petition, holding that the writ petitioner was absorbed as outsourced personnel in TSTRANSCO on as-is-where-is basis; t