Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
C. And M.D., TS Genco – Appellant
Versus
Registrar, Industrial Tribunal – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER:
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
The case of petitioners - TSGENCO is that Respondents 2 to 12 were alleged to have been working as contract labour engaged by a Contractor - M/s FABCONS, Paloncha in Kothagudem Thermal Power Station (KTPS) on the work of annual maintenance of Vapour Fans and Worm Conveyors. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 41, dated 23-09-1996 prohibiting employment of contract labour in 33 categories in APSEB in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 (I) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and declaring that orders for absorption of workers would be issued by the department concerned. In terms thereof, the then APSEB issued guidelines for abolition of contract labour working in 33 categories in various generating stations vide B.P.Ms. No. 37, dated 18-05-1997. Subsequently, further instructions were issued vide B.P.Ms. No. 260, dated 19-12-1997 and B.P.Ms.No. 272, dated 31-12-1997.
1.2. Further, it was contended that Respondents’ cases were also considered and they were found to b
The court confirms that eligibility for absorption of contract workers must be evaluated against their documented employment in abolished categories under the Industrial Disputes Act and associated g....
The court confirmed that contract workers may directly approach the Tribunal for adjudication on employment claims, and held that previous contracts do not guarantee automatic absorption under the Co....
The court upheld that a workman may file an industrial dispute directly with the Tribunal without government referral, affirming rights under legislative amendments pertaining to contract labour abso....
Court upheld that a direct industrial dispute application by a contract worker is valid and automatic absorption into the employer's establishment is not mandated but preference should be given for a....
The direct filing of an Industrial Dispute by workers under the amended provisions is valid; tribunals may direct absorption into employment if conditions allow, balancing legislative and judicial in....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for contract labourers to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated for regularisation and permanent absorption, including....
The Labour Court's determination that a sham contract exists may classify workers as employees of the principal employer, thereby validating their claims for service conditions and protections under ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article