IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17614 of 2006 Between: A.P.Genco Diploma Engineers Association (Regd.No.H-48), Head Quarter at SRT-23, VPTS 'A' Colony, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District rep., by its Secretary General, A.Srinivasa kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh power Generation Corporation Limited, Vidyutsoudha, Hyderabad-82 rep., by its Managing Director. 2 The Chief General Manager (I.R.) Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Vidyutsoudha, Hyderabad-82. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, or order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Lr.No.CGM(IR)/DS(Ser)/AS(Ser.I)/PO.N/568/05-1, dt.07-03-2006 without providing all the facilities on par with all other registered Trade Unions as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(c) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said letter dt.07-03-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to provide all the facilities/benefits on par with all other Registered Trade Unions, including calling for negotiations while framing new policy guidelines and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondent : MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM FOR R The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been filed by A.P. Genco Diploma Engineers Association with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent-Chief General manager (TR), A.P. Power Generation Corporation Limited in issuing letter No.CGM(IR)/DS(Ser)/AS(Ser.I)/PO.N/568/05-1, dated 7.3.2006 as arbitrary and illegal and violative of articles 14, 19(1)(c) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is an association of Andhra Pradesh Genco Diploma Engineers. It has been registered under Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 with registration No.H-48 on 9.5.2005. The members of the association are diploma engineers designated as Sub-Engineers or Additional Assistant Engineers based on their place of work. There are about 300 Sub-Engineers/AAEs. A representation has been made by the petitioner- Union to provide certain facilities such as allotment of accommodation etc. to the petitioner-Union and its members. Their request came to be negatived under the proceedings impugned in this writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner- Union is affiliated to APGEU in which the office bearers have been provided with necessary facilities on par with other unions and hence the claim for extension of such facilities to the petitioner-association cannot be sustainable as the same is not a separate entity. It is stated in the additional counter affidavit that APSEB SC & ST Employees Welfare Association (Regd.No.1589/92) is an independent association and approved by the erstwhile APSEB vide BP(P&G) Per RT.No.345, dated 3.2.1995 and the said association is not affiliated to any recognized Union and hence the benefits are being extended to the said association. It is further stated in the additional counter affidavit that the petitioner- association is neither approved nor recognized either by the erstwhile APSEB or by AP GENCO and it is affiliated to APPGEU i.e. Union No.1535, therefore it cannot claim any separate entity and benefits on par with the recognized unions or approved associations. Hence, the petitioner-association shall represent its grievances through APPGEU (Regd.No.E-1535). 4. Rule nisi came to be ordered on 25.8.2006. When WPMP.No.22088 of 2006 came up for consideration, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Union has not been provided with the facilities/benefits on par with other unions and that it has a separate entity and therefore there is an obligation on the part of the respondents to provide facilities which were provided to other trade unions. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner-Union cannot claim separate entity and therefore providing facilities to the petitioner- association does not arise. 8. Indisputably the petitioner Union is affiliated to APPGEU and it can represent the grievances of its members through APPGEU. The petitioner-Union is neither approved nor recognized either by the erstwhile APSEB or by the APGENCO. There is no obligation on the part of the respondents to provide all facilities to the petitioner-Union on par with other Union such as its parent union-APPGEU. Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 20th January 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17614 OF 2006 20TH JANUARY 2009.