High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records and quash the award dated- 29-06-2O17 in l.D.No. 02 ot 2013 on the file of the lndustrial Tribunal - l, Hyderabad as Arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 46701 OF 2017 ) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the award dated: 29-06-2017 in l.D.No. O2 of 2013 on the file of the lndustrial Tribunal - l, Hyderabad pending the writ petition. \ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for the Sole Respondent: Ms. AMBUJA MANE t?." WRIT PETITION NO: 37636 OF 2017 Between: The Management of APCPDCL, (Presently known as Telangana Southem Power Distribution Company Limited TSSF'DCL), Rep chairman and lrlanaging Director, Mint compound, Hyderabad. State by its AND A. Lakshmi, D/o. A.Varaha Suryam, aged about 46 years, Working as LDC cum computer operator (Contract), O/o CGM (O & l/l), APCPDCL Mint Compound, Hyderabad- 500004. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the tligh Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly r)ne in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records and quash the awarrl dated- 29-06-2017 in l.D.No. 03 of 2013 on the file of the lndustrial Tribuna - l, Hyderabad as Arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO :46744 OF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the award dated: 29-06-2017 in l.).No. 03 of 2013 on the file of the lndustrial Tribunal - 'l , Hyderabad pending the'itvrit petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL Counsel forthe Sole Respondent: Ms. AMBUJA MANE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ) 1 wp_37505 & 37636-2017 NBK,I THEHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH B HE EMAPAKA WRITPETITIO N Nos.3760 5and3 7636 of 2017 COMMO N ORDER: The petitioner-Telangana State Southem 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 <!f 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 2011 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 0l'04'1996 as a Contract Labour through various contractors. ln 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 a dispute under the lndustrial Disputes Act' 1947 ' As 1l t! 2 wp 37605 & 37636_2017 N8(, J the conciliatory efforts failed, the matter was referred bl the Govemment to the Industrial'I'ribunal. The Tribunal registered the cirse as ID No.3 of 2013 and, after due enquiry, allowed the case in favour r,1'the respondent- workman by obscrv'ing as follows: "ln the result, the lD No.3 of 2013 is allowed with c<'sts holding that the denial of appointment to the post of TypisULDC- Computer Operator by the respondent Managcment (now TSSPDCL) is totally unjustified, not valid, legal and oontra to the policy and scheme framed under Ex-Ml by the ResJrondent and therefore, the respondent is hereby directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment by atrsorption on regular basis in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 and 37 (Ex-l,Il)within a period of three months from the date of publication <rf the Award. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall corrply all the procedural aspects as is necessary and directed by the respondent from time to time." Aggrieved by thc Award, the petitioner-Coml):ury is before this Court with this rvrit petition.

4. Heard Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for the petitioner-Company: and Ms.Ambuja Mane, leamc<l counsel for the respondent-Workman. Perused the record. l-earned courrsel for the petitioner-Compan y, while making

5. submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, mainly contends that Ex.W-5 (Service Certificate from Sri Datta Commercial Institute) produced by the respondent-worknlan shows that she worked under APGENCO from

01.04. 1996 to 31.05.1997, howeveq there was no conpany in existence by name APGENCO; that she did not fulfil the trasic condition of ) ) I 3 wp_37605 & 37636_2017 NBK, J 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 effect i.e fiom 15.09.2006 but relaxation was given in respect ofthe 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. Leamed counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the Tribunal had passed the impugned Award after due enquiry and the same does not suffer from any illegality. 7 . Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is pertinent to note that the Tribunal, at paragraph 15 ofthe Award, referred to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5064 of 1999 and batch, dated 18.11.1999, wherein it was held by this Court as under: "The respondent-Gorporation shall not make any distinction whatsoever between the contract labour employed by a licensed contractor and contract labour employed by an unlicensed contractor for the purpose of consideration of their case for absorption, selection and appointment into the regular service of the respondent-Corporation in the categories specified in B.P.Ms.No.36 and 37, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Case (3 SUPRA)' 4 wp_37605 & 37636_2017 NBK,,J The res pondent-Corporation also shall not insist for an order from this court in this regard in each individual ,:ase, as the Corporation is bound to obey the law declared by this court."

8. Further, it is relevant to referto paragraphs 16. 17 and 18 ofthe Award of the Tribunal, which read as follows:

16. Although the respondent withdrawn B.P.Ms.No.36 dated: 18.5.'1997-Ex.Ml, under Ex-M2 but it saves the cases which are sub-judice before the Hon'ble High CourUSupreme CourUAny other Court and therefore prima facie Ex. M2 is no way hurdle to test the veracity of the dispute raised ON MERITS. So let us have a quick look at the failure report given by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-lll, Hyderabad dated 2i:.08.2013 to discern facts to test the denial of appointment to the post of TypisULDC by the respondent is justified or not. ln the said failure report last three paras discloses the following; reason and conclusion which are also absolutely supporting th,r plea of the petitioner: "The typist are not eligible to be considered for appointment are engaged in Chief Engineer/Operation/CPDCL, but not in Vidyut lioudha, Hyderabad. Hence you are not eligible for appoiorment in Vidyutsoudha. As per the above 2 clauses his appointment is stat?d to be rejected At clause 3, the General Manager (Personal) stated that for the reasons deemed that your c,rse has been considered in accordance with the directions of High Court and that the orders are implemented in its entity. ln view of the above speaking order it is clear that as he is eligible for the post of typist the management is nct ready >to appoint his as typisf except the individuals ttho got '/" 5 wp 375O5 & 37636-2017 NBK, J orders from the High Court only considered. The applicant above is financially poor and he could not approach the Hon'ble High Court to get the orders for appointment to the post of typist. Denial of the request for appointment as typist by the management is not iustified being eligible having alt the quatifications as per the guidelines issued tn BP (P &G) No.36. Therefore, the applicants case is a fit case for adiudication of the rssue ,n the couri of Law that the lssue admitted into the conciliation in the interest of justice."

17. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, rules, guidelines framed by the respondent by default and as natural corollary leading to the logical conclusion that the sole reason assigned by the respondent before the Conciliation Officer is casual, flimsy, not just, valid ground and it can be said that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner and denial of appointment of petitioner to the post of TypisULDC by absorption is in crystal clear terms in violation of Article '14 of the Constitution of lndia and the action of the Conciliation Officer and the respondent is highly arbitrary and not within the standard parameters of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia' Whether the petitioner who was engaged as contract labour and rendered services either in Ghief Engineer (operations)/APGPDGL or in Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, it does not make any difference for appointment by absorption especially when the petitioner has satisfied all the pre-requisites for absorption into the regular cadre services under the guidelines enumerated under Ex'M1' the respondent ought to have considered the continuous length of service put in by the petitioner, as well as unblemished conduct and performance exhibited by the petitioner' 18. Further, it is rightly observed by the Conciliation Officer' i'e'' Assistant Commissioner of Labour-ll, Hyderabad, in the failure 6 wp_37605 & 37635_2017 N8K,I *.-, report at the penultimate para that the petitioner is elirrible for the post of Typist but the management of the respondent are not ready to appoint him as typist except the individu:rls who got orders from the Hon'ble High Court only considered. The applicant (petitioner) is financially poor and he could not approach the Hon'ble High Court to obtain the orders for the post of Typist. He also observed that the denial of the request for appointment as Typist by the management is not ju:;tified being eligible possessing all the qualifications as per the guidelines issued under Ex.M1 and found the case of the petitioner is fit case for adjudication of the dispute in the Court of law. As already stated the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.5064 of 1999 i.e., Transmission Corporation of A.P case in crystal clear terms directed that the respondent shall not insist for ar order from this Court in each and every individual case. :urther, the respondent shall not make any distinction whatsoever between the contract labour employed by the licensed contractor and contract labour employed by an un-licensed contr:rctor for the purpose of consideration of their cases for absorptir>n, selection and appointment into the regular seryice of the respondent corporation. The post of Typist is one of the initial recruitment cadre post enumerated under Ex.Ml. Thus the marragement of the respondent is totally not justified denying the lrctitioner for appointment to the post of TypisULDC-Computer O;rcrator....."

9. Further, the'Iribunal, having considered the respoctive contentions, observed at Paragraph 19 as follows: "19. ........ From Exs.W4, W5, W6, W7, W8, and W9, itreveals that the petitioner initially worked in mother Departnent that is APSEB (Ex-Wa), and thereafter he rendered services in APCPDCL and'therefore I find no grounds and rnerits in the \ \ t 7 wp 37605 & 37636_2017 N8K, J contention advanced by the respondent in this regard. Merely because on account of reforms initiated by the Government and for the sake of decentralization of powers, proper distribution of power, easiness in the administration, four subsidiary DISCOMS were constituted that is not a ground, much less justifiable reason for denial of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Typigt-LDC-Computer Operator who is eligible under Ex.M1 scheme in all respects framed by the erstwhile APSE Board with the permission of the Government. For the sake of administration and jurisdiction if it is necessary the petitioner can be absorbed in appropriate company either in any one of the four DISCOMS or in APGENCO. Moreover, it was also elicited from the cross examination of llVwl that the petitioner is now working for DISCOMS which are subsidiary companies of AP TRANSCO. Thus, absolutely there are no valid, legal and justifiable grounds for denial of appointment to the post of TypisULDC-Computer Operator or suitable post by absorption for the petitioner and this court has no other alternative except to answer all the issues No.l to 3 in favour of the petitioner and as against the respondent. The fact that the petitioner right from '1996 till today has put in continuously 21 years of service and rendered services to the respondent without any blur or blemish deserves due consideration.

10. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal after considering Exs.W4, W5, W6, W7, W8, and W9, held that respondent initially worked in APSEB (Ex-Wa), and thereafter rendered services in APCPDCL. The Tribunal considered the direction of this Court in W.P.No.5064 of 1999 directing that the petitioner-Company should not insist for an order from the Court in each and every case, and the Company should not differentiate between the candidates based on licensed or unlicensed I I o wp_37605 & 37636_2017 NBK, J contractor. The Tribtrnal framed three issues and considering the oral evidence of WW. I and the documents Exhibits Wl to \M24 on behalf of the respondent-workmanl and the oral evidence of MW. I and the documents Exhibits M1 and M2 on behalf ofthe petitiorer-Company, and appreciated the facts in proper perspective, and arrived z( a well-reasoned conclusion and answered the issues in favour of the resp,rndent-workman.

11. Having gone through the impugned Awards and also the contentions raised before this Court in these writ petitions, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in tlre writ petitions, warranting interference under the extraordinary jurisdi<;tion of this Court under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution.

12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed h1, confirming the Award dated 29.06.2017 passed by the Tribunal in I.t),No.2 of 2013 and Award dated 29.06.2017 in I.D.No.3 of 2013. No cos-s. The petitioner- Company is directed to pass appropriate orders within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. lt is made clear trat this order shall be prospective. i.e., effective from the date of the order, and the respondents-worlonen shall not claim any retrospective monetary benehts on account o1' this order. They shall, however, tre entitled to all consequential notional benefits from the date of abso qrtion/appointment. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand clcsed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- S.IIALLIKARJUNA RAO I \--..-* aqsirsrAN T RE_qrs_rEAB ----'- /.\ i \\ j sEcnoN oFFlcER

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Managem eVt of APCPDCL, (Presently known as Telangana State Southem Power Distribu:ion Company Limited TSSPDCL), Mint compound, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSFDCL [OPUC] One CC to Ms. AMBUJA MANE, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To, 2 3 4 BSR &, HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 CC TODAY COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.37605 and 37636 ot 2017 t';y'gt<1da' s ,,. '.o aa.'*r- . )i 23 APB 2M DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIOI'IS, WITHOUT COSTS V +