The Chairman / Managing Director, A.P. Power Generation Corporation & Ors. v. NONE

the circumstances petition, the High Court may be implemeht the Award passed by the made rule of stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pleased to direct the Respondents to Labour Court, Guntur in l,D.No.123/2004, dated 31.1.2008 as law by the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.509 Training the Judgment rendered by No.9793/2010, dated 31.1.2017 Labour, Employment and Factories (LAB.l) Department, dated 12.3.2008 in the light o Civil Appeal pending disposal of the Writ Petition. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Counsel for the Petitioner ; SRI. PRAKASH BUDDARAPU Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: 6P FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent Nos STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO . 2 and 3; NAGARAJU NAGURU, Court made the following common order: The APHC010429842008 QMS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] 'hA , THE DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22674/2008 Between: The Chairman / Managing Director, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) Ch Durga Rao and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S)- AND ...RESPONDENT(S) I.Nagaraju Naguru, Standing Counsel ForAPGENCO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR LABOUR PRAKASH BUDDARAPU WRIT PETITION NO: 8563/2017 Between: Ch. Durga Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.PRAKASH BUDDARAPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): LNagaraju Naguru, Standing Counsel For APGENCO

2.GP FOR LABOUR (AP)

THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) The Court made the following: Common DMar- \r Vv Corporation (herein after for the W.P No.22674 of 2008 has been filed by the A.R Power Generation sake of brevity referred to as ‘APGENCO’). 31.01.2008 made in I.D No.123 of 2004 being aggrieved by the Award dated passed by the Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Guntur/ 2"'^ Respondent (in short Tribunal') and seeking quashing by the 1“ RespondentWorkman of the same. The said I.D was filed which was published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.509, dated 12.03.2008, whereunder, the Tribunal had passed an Award in I.D No 123 of 2004 by directin >9 the APGENCO i - ro employ the petitioner as and when they make regular appointment relaxing age and academic qualifications etc. in their Organisation by

2. Whereas, W.P No.8563 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner/Workman before this Hon’ble Court seeking direction to implement the Award dated 31.01.2008 against the APGENCO Authorities made in I.D 123 of 2004 passed Tribunal, was also published the A.P Gazette G.O.Rt.No.509, dated 12.03.2008 and to declare the G.O.No.697 of 2002,

03.02.2003 consequential direction to absorb the petitioner with effect from 06.12.19^6 the APGENCO initio and issued into the APGENCO. For the sake of better understanding the parties i.e., petitioner in W.P 3. No.8563 of 2017 & respondent in W.P No.22678 of 2008 and the petitioner in 3 W.P No.22678 of 2008 & respondent in W.P No.8563 of 2017, herein after referred to as ‘Workman’ and ‘APGENCO respectively. In the above two Writ Petitions, the subject matter revolves around one 4. Award dated 31.01.2008 made in ,.D.No.123 of 2004 passed by the Tribunal, published in theA.P. Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.509, dated 12.03.2008.

Whereas, the APGENCO had sought to quash the Award dated

31.01.2008 and conversely, the Workman is urging to implement the same Award under challenge. concerning these Writ Petitions, and also There being a commonality of law and facts taking into consideration common submissions by the respective Counsels, this Court ventures to pass a Common Order in the above Writ Petitions.

Heard APGENCO Sri Nagaraju Nagaru learned as well as Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned counsel for the Standing counsel Workman, at length. Brief case of the Workman-

The claim of the Workman i in the I.D is that he worked as Leave Reserve Contract Labour i pump house operation under the control of Chief Engineer, VTPS Ibrahimpatnam running under APGENCO through a contractor by the name of Prabhath

01.04.1992 to 16.03.1998. Engineering Works from the period

It is also Andhra Pradesh by averred in Claim Petition i •n the I.D that the Government of exercising the powers conferred Section 10 of the Contract Labour (regulation under Sub-Section (1) of and Abolition) Act, 1970 i issued GO.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996. Contract Labour in 33 categories of while Andhra Pradesh State whereunder, it prohibited employment of employment specified therein, i in the erst Electricity Board (APSEB). 9- Subsequently, APSEB with the activity of power Transmission, Distribution, instrumentality ofthe state Government Constitution of India. was divided into APGENCO (which is entrusted generation) and APTRANSCO (empowered to Supply of Electricity), In Nutshell . APGENCO is the which is amenable to Article 12 of the

Inconsonance with the above state Electricity Board formulated dated 18.05.1997 i stated G.O, the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh guidelines in B.P (P & G Per.) Ms.No.37 against the said 33 State Electricity Board by in respect of appointment of prohibited/abolished categories Contract Labour engaged of employment in A.P prescribing the appointment procedure. Later another B.P (P& q Per.) Ms.No.260 for absorption of the Contract dated 19.12.1997 was issued specifically Labour engaged against the above said 33 prohibited/abolished categories, which dated 23.09.1996. Subsequently, another B. are mentioned in the G.O.Ms No.41, P.(P&G Per.) Ms.No.272, dated

31.12.1997, was also issued.

It is further case of the Workman was not absorbed into the that inspite of having pre-requisites, he service by the APGENCO as such, the Workman along with'the similarly placed persons instituted W.P. No.6478 of 1999 before erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, arraying the APGENCO Authorities as the respondents. Whereunder, the Hon’ble High Court

09.10.2000, directed the APGENCO authorities to consider the case of the Workman for absorption without reference to the Leave Reserve employment, etc and as the same was not fructified, the Workman filed a contempt. The said contempt case was closed, recording the submission of the APGENCO that out of 27 petitioners, 19 members were absorbed and also with a further direction to APGENCO to re-verify the records in respect of workman and others.

Later on. the case of the Workman was rejected vide rejection orders dated 23.06.2001 by the APGENCO Authorities on the main ground that the Workman did not fulfil the prescribed modalities under B.P.Ms.No.37, dated

18.05.1997 read with B.P.Ms.No.272 dated, 31.12.1997 for his absorption. It was the case of the Workman that, he submitted photocopiesof Service certificates (Ex.W.4), (Ex.W.5) and Gate Pass (Ex.W.6). Despite the same, his case was rejected by way of Common Order.

At last, the Workman, along with other similarly placed persons, filed another Writ Petition vide W.P.No. 13587 of 2002 & batch before the High Court of A.P at Hyderabad, challenging the said Rejection Order dated

23.06.2001 passed by the APGENCO. The Hon’ble High Court disposed , of the same by clubbing with other batch of cases in terms of common orders a direction to the '/'Workman A passed in W.p./Vo *0 approach the 1246 of 1999 batch i Tnbuna/ for his absorption '^as directed to dispose of 'Workman approached the cfec/are the Rejection Orders “nght for absorpti benefits. Thus 'on into the /.D Was theAPGENCO emanated. Counter avemienfs StlbeAPGEf^; such dispute rai Tribunal by filing dated 23.06.2001 concerned Tribunal and further, the raised by the Workman. Hence, Industrial Dispute seeking to as i7/egat Establishment with all arbitrary and a/so consequential

Conversely, APGENCO deployment cf the Workman filed its Counter /; inter alia and others through the own accord and it there '^as no Master APGENCO. it is further '^as not and Servant requisitioned by ^pgenco. relationship between contending that contractor was on their *t is pleaded the Workmen on rolls as on the RPMs.No.37 Therefore, the Workm that the Workman i Sfeef Authority Thereby resisted ''®reion Of the APGENCO requisite date and did not fulfil

18.05.1997 that the workman was not the oonditions prescribed in B.PMs.No.272 a" Is not eligible for absorption, not entitled for of India Ltd absorption in 'n view of the National Union the claim filed by the Workman. dated 31.12.,997 it is further contended decision held in l^aferfnonf Workers'. '(2001) 7 see 7 Summary of the Industrial Dispute:

In the I.D No.123 of 2004proceedings, the Workman gothimself as W.W.1 and marked Ex.W1 to Ex.WII. He also examined the contractor as W.W.2 in support case. On behalf ofAPGENCO, M.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked by them. Basing upon the above contentions, the Tribunal framed the following Issues which are; i. Whether the Workman/petitioner worked in any one of the 33 abolished categories as contract labour as on 23.09.1996? To what relief? ID. ihe iribunai had gone through theevidence of W.W.1 .(workman), who stated elaborately about his assertions raised in the claim petition in his evidence too. it had also gone through the evidence of W.W.2,(contractor). who engaged the workman in the APGENCO andhis evidence on record was the Workman had worked as a Contract Labour in APGENCO Establishment. It had gone through documentary evidence marked on behalf of the Workman i.e., Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.11. It had also taken into consideration of the sole witness evidence ofAPGENCO i.e., M.W.1, who deposed on behalf of APGENCO. But did not mark any documentary evidence to substantiate their version.

The Tribunal had alsoobserved thatthe said witness did not answer in concrete manner and he deposed that, he doesn’t have any knowledge in respect of the Workman worked in the prohibited/abolished category or not and further pleaded about unawareness to the petition as well as the documentary evidences W.W.2. In a Nutshell, Tribunal unawarenessand has knowledge about the opinion that M.W. 1 failed to substantiate case asserted in. the claim submitted by the W.W. 1 and observed that, M.W.1 pleaded every aspect. It had finally 'he APGENCO's version. come to

The Tribunal considering the evidence '^d'Ked prohibited/abolished the APGENCO absorption. However /nc//a tsupra) r' passed the A adjudicated the claim and counter establishment averments and also on record. oame to specific finding that the Workman °n 23.09.1996 that Workman is entitled for dpon the dictum of steel Arrfhorify ••elevant portion of the same is category and also observed the Tribunal, relying - Award and the read as under: In the result petition is allowed. The Rejection passed by the directed to respondent is set aside. employ the petitioner Respondents are regular appointments in their academic qualifications as and when they organisation by relaxing age and etc. Award is passed accordingly.

Thus, the sai to set aside the said Award has been challenged same by way of W.P. by the APGENCO seeking No. 22674 of 2008.Wherein this Court granted interim orders against the I.D. Award and the Workman mistakenimpression that the Award finality, but the said Award passed by the Tribunal was under the had attained was not implemented by the APGENCO.On 9 premise, Workman filed W.P 8563 of 2017 before this Court seeking to implement the Industrial Award and also sought for his absorption. Submissions advanced by the respective Counsels:

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APGENCO at the outset, raised the point about the maintainability of very Industrial Dispute before the Tribunalon the ground that the Contract LabourAA/orkma n directly filed the disputeunder Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for absorption, without approaching to the Government under Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947is not valid. Hence, the very proceedings, are licsuic; to be set aside. He furthei contended that aithough Workman did not fulfil the conditions laid down in the G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996, the Tribunal had erroneously passed the Award in favour of the Workman. Hence, the Award is not valid.

Conversely, the learned counsel for the Workmen submits that the Tribunal ought to have extended the automatic absorption to the Workmen with all consequential benefits from the year 1996 onwards. The learned counsel has not stretched his submissions in respect of remaining aspects. Analysis:

In the light of above rival submissions, this Court is formulating the following issues for consideration in the present lis:- (i) Whether the initiation of Industrial Dispute U/s 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly by the Contract Workman 10 Ubo before the Tribunal wifhou, reference by the Govern.en, under Section 10-1 (c, of the Industrial Disputes Act maintainable or not? 1947 is Whether the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal Labour Court is liable to be interfered or not? -cum- Whether the workman is entitled for automatic absorption into the APGENCO Establishment or not? (ii) (iii) IssueO):-

Apparently, the Workman, Writ Petition No. 19583 along with the similarly placed persons, filed of 1999 & batch, before the High Court of A.P at Hyderabad, whereunder, they challenged (Ex.W.10) passed against them by the APGENCO. the rejection of absorption orders The High Court by clubbing together the similar cases, and also following the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited case referred to supra passed the Common orders (Ex.W.11,, permitting the Workman and others raise an Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal about their claim and also further directed the possible. concerned Tribunal to dispose of the same as early as

Accordingly, the Workman rightly approached the Tribunal I m terms of specific orders of the High Court only. State of Andhra Pradesh also brought Section 2 (27.07.1987) to Section In this context, it is apt to note that the an amendment vide A.P. Act (32 of 87) 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Sub-Section (2), which is extracted hereunder:- 11 specified “(2) Notwithstanding anything in S.10, any such workman as in Sub-sec. (1) may, make an application in the prescribed manner direct to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein; and on receipt of such application, the Labour Court shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any it were a dispute referred to or pending matter in the dispute, as if Act, and in accordance with the provisions of this. before it, accordingly all the provisions of shall apply in relation to such dispute as they apply in relation to any other industrial dispute.

Thus, in view of the A.P. State Amendment, stating that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, any Workman may make an application straight away to the Tribunal' for. adjudication of the dispute.

In fact, in the instant case the Tribunal had already passed the Order dated30.03.2007, while deciding the preliminary issue, holding that the petition filed by the workman is treated as Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also inview of earlier High Court direction reference under Section 10-1 (c) of the too.

In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the dictum of the unified High Court at Hyderabad in P.S. Ramakrishna & Others Vs Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltcf which dealt with the and arrived at its unequivocal findings in the following very same issue manner; ^20®4j(2) Labour Law Notes, Til 12 r the three Government to refer that Courts '’9- The Legislature, the Executive and the judiciary are organs of the State. The Act empowers the appropriate a dispute to the Tribunal But, it cannot be said a dispute for adjudication as the act of the Court is also the act of are not empowered to refer of the Industrial Tribunal the State. contained in Further S.2A (2) has been inserted by the State stating that notwithstanding anything any workman may make

20. Andhra Pradesh, S.10 of the Act, the Labour Court for adjudication yet another reason where the Court cannot refuse to „ an application directly to of the dispute Therefore, there is Industrial Tribunal or the Labour entertain the industrial dispute raised by the «onef as laid down by fhe Sup.™ Couri in .he ,dp„,e„. 1 supra, which is binding on the Labour Courts the case may be. or the Tribunals as ^1. Hence, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal may be, is bound to entertain the pursuant to the orders of this Court, under S. 10(1) of the Act " as the case dispute raised by the petitioners ' treating it as a reference made

Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Workman before the Tribunal i IS rightly maintainable. the filing of the I.D directly by Issue Hi):-

Coming to the second i issue, the central point in the Workman case rests on G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.09. 1996 issued by fhe Government of A.P. The said G.O. issued by the Government of A.P by exercising its power under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,-1970., so as to, benefit the Contract Labour and prohibit the employment of Contract Labour in 33 categories in the A.P State categories are as follows;- Electricity Board. The said 13

Hospital Workers.

2. Coal Plant Operations.

3. Soot blowing Operations.

Ash Plant Operations.

5. Breaking of Coal.

6. Boulders of Grid.

7. Coal feeding to units through reclamation grids of conveyor.

8. Crusher House Operations.

Grid Jam Cleaning at Wagon trippler and Coal Plant.

10. Al Feeder Operations.

11. Hydrogen Plant Operations.

12. Water Boys.

13. Auxilatory A.C. Plants.

14. Jam Removers

15. Mixing of Chemicals.

Collection of Samples:

17. Stacker.

18. Reclaimers.

19. Sweeper

20. Sanitary Mazdoors.

21. Scavengers.

22. Pump House Operations. 23 Electricians. 14

24. Coal Mill.

25. Burner Floor.

26. Raw Water Pump Operations.

27. Water Treatment.

28. Dust Electro Static Operations 29 Otis Elevator Plant Maintenance. 30 Instruments

Helpers.

Pulverising Mills.

Lab Assistants.

By relying upon the above said G.O as well as its consequential guidelines framed thereon to absorb the Contract Labourers into Establishment, the workman by stating the APGENCO Establishment. his suitability, sought absorption into The Workman initially approached the Hon’ble High Court, by challenging the rej rejection of absorption orders into APGENCO whereunder, this Court did not exercise its powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however it directed the workman to approach the Tribunal. Thereupon, the Workman rightly instituted before the Tribunal long back. an industrial dispute

31. The Workman also placed his evidence as well as documentary proofs to substantiate his assertions. Similarly, the APGENCO resisted the said claim of the workman. But the Tribunal by pursuing the respective pleadings. 15 depositions (W.W.1, W.W.2 pertaining to the Workman as well as M.W.1 pertaining to APGENCO) documentary evidences i.e., G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh (Ex.W.1), B.P.Ms.No.37 dated 18.05.1997 and B.P.Ms.No.272 dated

31.12.1997(Ex.W-2) & (Ex.W-3), Service Certificates (Ex.W.4) &(Ex.W.5), copy of Gatepasses of the APGENCO establishment (Ex.W.6), copy of order in W.P.No.6478 of 1999 (Ex.W.7), which was initially filed by the Workman and others, Contempt Orders (Ex.W.8), representation Workman(Ex.W.9), rejection order passed by the APGENCO (Ex.WIO), wherein, it rejected the Workman’s absorption and copy of orders passed in the second round of litigation vide W.P.No.19583 of 1999 & batch(Ex.W.11) instituted by the Workman before the High Court of A.P challenging the inaction of APGENCO in absorbing the workman, whereunder, the Workman directed to approach the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance after taking into consideration the fact that the APGENCO, did not submit any documentary proofs to demolish the version of the Workman.

32. In the light of the above voluminous record, the Tribunal, by exercising its exclusive domain, determined the issues, which are predominantly highly disputed questions of fact and the reasons arrived at by the Tribunal were based upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record.

33. In fact, the APGENCO merely raised the self-same issues without demonstrating such finding of facts arrived by the Tribunal suffers from "X 16 inherent flaws and taking into consideration of the amounts to grave error of law. In view of said aspects exclusive domain of the Tribunal, this Court do T V' not find any legal infirmity or illegality in passing the Award. supra the APGENCO, failed to substantiate i More so, as stated its assertions in the present lis.

The Tribunal consciously, following the case of the Steel Authority of India Ltd (referred supra) in its true letter and spirit, decision the Award in the instant case, the relevant portion of which only, had passed reads as under; . the result, petition is allowed. The Reiection order passed by the respondent is set aside. Res^ms are directed to employ the petitioner as and when they make ^ regular appointments in their organisation bv y relaxing Qnca qualifications Award accordingly.” academic passed etc.

Therefore, in the considered ooi opinion of this court, the Tribunal within the touchstone of the Constitutional Court mandate made in the case of Steel Authority of India (referred supra), arrived at plausible and reasonable findings pertaining to the disputed questions of facts in the lis. Issue fiii)!-

In Steel Authority of India Waterfront Workers and Others Ltd and Others Vs National Union (supra), a five (5) Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing Labour (Regulation and Abolition) with the provisions of the Contract Act. 1970 along with its object intendment by scanning the relevant facets of the Contract Labour aspects, overruled the dictum held In Air india Statutory Corporation Vs United 17 Labour Union^ and in unequivocal words arrived at its findings. For the sake of comprehensive view, the relevant paras 125 & 126 read as under:- ....125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus: (1)(a) (b) (2)(a).... (b).... (3).... • (4).... (5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section of theCLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or 10(1) otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or various a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benem thereunder.

By a plain reading of the above 18 paras of the Constitutional mandate, the mere issuance of prohibition Sub-Section (1) of Section Act. 1970 prohibiting notification by the appropriate Government 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) employment of Contract Labour establishment, does not entitle the contract labour other words. a mere issuance of prohibition to automatic absorption. In notification by the State will not confer the absolute ri rights in favour of the Government by itself Contract Labour/Workman Establishment. However, i in the event of APGENCO desires absorption the APGENCO to employ regular Workmeh. in that case, it shall ai Labour/Wo.rkman, i ■'f otherwise give preference to the erstwhile contract finds fit. In such course, the APGENCO. by relaxing the conditions i in respect of maximum without altering the technical qualifications remain unchanged. age, academic qualifications,

Inthelightofaboveratio-decedendii the orders passed by the Tribunal I question of automatic absorption inview of the facts and ci Steel Authority of India (supra), IS valid, reasonable and apt. Therefore, the as pleaded by the Workman i IS not entitled circumstances involved in the lis.

Learned counsel for the Workman placed reliance upon the Order dated Court in Civil Appeal No.9793 of 2010 and

31.01,2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme orders dated 24.02.2022 i of this Court, in an attempt to persuade this Court, said orders, this Court finds that the facts and ci in Writ Appeal No. 1269 of 2017 of the Division Bench However, after perusing the circumstances in those cases 19 are distinguishable from the present case, In both the cases, the Tribunal passed the Industrial Awards, directing the absorption of the Workmen therein into the Establishments. Whereas, in the instant case, admittedly, the Tribunal directed the APGENCO to employ the Workman, as and when they make regular appointments in the organisation by relaxing age and academic qualifications etc., but did not order automatic absorption. In this regard, this Court is relying upon the observation made by the five (5) Judge Bench in Steel Authority of India’s case (supra), which is extracted as under;- “

We have used the expression "industrial I adjudicator" by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires enquiry' into disputed questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be the Industrial Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review ” Conclusion:-

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the lis and also taking into consideration the Constitutional Mandate laid down by the five (5) Judge Bench in Steel Authority of India Lfc/.(supra),this Court is inclined to pass the following order:- (i) (ii) Writ Petition No.22674 of 2008 filed dismissed. by APGENCO is Writ Petition No.8563 of 2017 filed by Workman is partly allowedby confirming the award dated 31.01.2008, made in I.D.No.123 of 2004 by the Tribunal, published in A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.509 dated 12.03.2008 to the extent of setting 20 ' T aside the rejection orders passed by the APGENCO and directing the APGENCO Authorities to employ the Workman, as and when, they make regular appointment in APGENCO by relaxing the age and academic qualifications only. V\ (iii) In view of the considerable efflux of time since the institution of industrial dispute in the year 2004, and also taking into consideration of Constitutional ethos, this Court expects that, APGENCO initiates expeditious and effective steps towards the implementation of the award dated 31.01.2008 passed by the Tribunal in its true letter and spirit. No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, & Factories (GAS-II) Department, State Amaravathi, Guntur District. Labour, Employment, Training of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi,

2. The Chairman & Managing Director, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. APGENCO, Vidyuth Soudha,

3. The Chief Engineer, 0& M, VTPS, District. Ibrahimpatnam - 521 456, Krishna Sri. Prakash Buddarapu Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to 5. One CC to SRI. Nagaraju Naguru. Standing Counsel For APGENCO [OPUC]

6. Two CCs to GP for Labour High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

7. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED;20/06/2025 # . i COMMON ORDER VVP.Nos.22674 of 2008 sncl 8563 • i 5 2 n AUG 2n?5 "rr Current beciion . ^ DISMISSING THE WP 22674 OF 2008 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE WP 8563 OF 2017 WITHOUT COSTS