THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION Nos.37605 and 37636 of 2017

COMMON ORDER:

The petitioner-Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited filed these writ petitions against the Award dated 29.06.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.2 of 2013 and the Award of even date in I.D.No.3 of 2013. By the impugned Awards, the Tribunal had directed the petitioner-Company to consider the candidature of the respondents-workmen and appoint them by absorption on regular basis in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 and 37 dated

18.05.1997.

2. The subject matter of these writ petitions being identical, they are analogously heard and are taken up for disposal by this Common Order.

For the sake of reference, the facts in W.P.No.37636 of 2017 are taken.

3. Brief facts of the case, as contained in W.P.No.37636 of 2017, are that the respondent-workman (A.Lakshmi) rendered services as Typist in the petitioner-Company since 01.04.1996 as a Contract Labour through various contractors. In response to the Proceedings issued by erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) vide B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997, she submitted an application to the petitioner-Company seeking absorption in the Company as Typist. She was called for an interview; however, her candidature was rejected by speaking orders dated 19.09.2002. Initially she filed a writ petition, WP No.33699 of 2010, however, she had later withdrawn the writ petition on 04.08.2011 with liberty to raise adispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As the conciliatory efforts failed, the matter was referred by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal registered the case as ID No.3 of 2013 and, after due enquiry, allowed the case in favour of the respondent-workman by observing as follows:

“In the result, the ID No.3 of 2013 is allowed with costs holding that the denial of appointment to the post of Typist/LDC- Computer Operator by the respondent Management (now TSSPDCL) is totally unjustified, not valid, legal and contra to the policy and scheme framed under Ex-M1 by the Respondent and therefore, the respondent is hereby directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment by absorption on regular basis in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 and 37 (Ex-M1) within a period of three months from the date of publication of the Award. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall comply all the procedural aspects as is necessary and directed by the respondent from time to time.”

Aggrieved by the Award, the petitioner-Company is before this Court with this writ petition.

4. Heard Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Company; and Ms.Ambuja Mane, learned counsel for the respondent-Workman. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, mainly contends that Ex.W-5 (Service Certificate from Sri Datta Commercial Institute) produced by the respondent-workman shows that she worked under APGENCO from 01.04.1996 to 31.05.1997,however, there was no company in existence by name APGENCO; that she did not fulfil the basic condition of B.P.Ms.No.36 which stipulates that consideration of candidature would arise only if the candidate was on the rolls of the Company by the date of issuance of B.P.Ms.No.36; that B.P.Ms.No.36 was later withdrawn with retrospective effecti.e from 15.09.2006 but relaxation was given in respect of the cases pending before the Courts; that the respondent passed Speaking Orders dated 19.09.2002 in the case of the respondent- workman; that the respondent approached the Court in the year 2010, after withdrawal of B.P.Ms.No.36, and therefore the said BPMs No.36 is not applicable to the respondent and therefore the Award of the Tribunal directing to appoint the respondent is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the Tribunal had passed the impugned Award after due enquiry and the same does not