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 guidelines.

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 be not eligible for absorption. At this stage, Writ Petition No. 26785 of 1998 was filed to declare the results of Petitioners therein. This Court, by order dated 13-10-1998, disposed of the said Writ Petition directing Respondents therein to declare the results of Petitioners. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 19-01-1999, the claim of petitioners was rejected on the ground that they do not come under the 33 abolished categories in APSEB and they are not on rolls as on 23-09-1996.

1.3. In terms of the orders issued in B.P. Ms. No, 37, dated 18-5-1997, B.P. Ms. No. 260, dated 19-12-1997 and B.P. Ms. No. 272, dated 31-12-1997, certain contract labourers working in prohibited categories of employment were considered for absorption. At this stage, Writ Petition No. 6100 of 1999 and batch was filed, wherein this Court vide order dated 16-07-1999 directed Petitioners therein to produce evidence in support of their claim to APGENCO which was directed to reconsider the case of Petitioners therein in the light of the documents produced by them. Pursuant to the said order, GENCO vide GO.Ms. No. 437/GM (HR)/2000, dated 18-09-2000,constituted a Committee consisting of Chief Engineer/Generation, Chief Engineer/O&M, KTPS, General Manager (Administration) and General Manager (HR) to examine the merits of each of the Petitioners and to decide about their entitlement for absorption. Accordingly, the said Committee conducted meetings and after examination of the documents produced, came to the conclusion that 123 Petitioners are fulfilling the conditions prescribed in B.P. Ms. No, 37, dated 18-05-1997 and in respect of the remaining 64 Petitioners, came to the conclusion, as per the evidence produced, that none of the job attended by them as mentioned in the bona fide certificates and/or Field Officers report either do not fall under the purview of the prohibition categories of employment or that Petitioners have not been working as on 23-09-1996, as the case may be, hence, they are not entitled for absorption in terms of B.P.Ms. No. 37, dated 18-05-1997. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the claim of Petitioners was also considered and they were issued proceedings dated 04-10-2001 rejecting their candidature duly recording that they worked in annual maintenance of Vapour Fans and Worm Conveyors, which category of job is not included in 33 abolished categories. Hence, they do not meet the pre-requisite conditions laid down in B.P. Ms. No. 37, dated 18-05-1997.

1.4. Further, it was contended by petitioners that Respondents herein filed Writ Petition No. 21719 of 2002. This Court, by order dated 05-02-2003 disposed of the said Writ Petition permitting Petitioners therein to raise an Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Tribunal having jurisdiction as regards their entitlement for absorption or appointment under various orders issued by GENCO. In pursuance of the same, they approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Cour