IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS : 9256 of 2001 AND 21357 OF 2002 W.P.No.9256 of 2001 Between: 1 T. Vasudeva Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy R/o Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 2 R. Srinivas S/o Pentaiah R/o Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 3 K. Ramulu S/o Laxmaiah R/o Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 4 P. Ravi Kumar S/o Rajaiah R/o Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 5 R. Krishna Murthy S/o Shivalingam R/o Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 6 G. Prabhakar S/o Narayana R/o Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 7 P. Sadanandam S/o Sheshadri R/o Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 8 Y. Harish S/o Rama Narsaiah R/o Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 9 G. Sateesh S/o Sammaiah R/o Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 Chief Engineer (Electrical/HRD), Northern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd.,Warangal. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Northern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Warangal. 4 The President, Lions Club of Hanamkonda 2-11-501/9, Vijayanagar Colony, Gopalpur Road, Hanamkonda-506 009. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: SRI P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) Counsel for respondent No.4: None appeared. WRIT PETITION NO : 21357 of 2002 Between: 1 V. Nageshwar Rao, S/o Venkaiah, Kammam District. 2 A. Ravi Chandfer, S/O Laxmaiah, Kammam District. 3 M.V.L.N.Prasad, S/O Sreemannarayana, Kammam District. 4 Ch. Aadinarayana, S/o Venkaiah, Kammam District. 5 K. Nageshwar Rao, S/o Veeraiah, Kammam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Trassmission Corporation of A.P. Limited, Rep. by it's Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyutsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer(Elecl/HRD), NPDC of A.P. Ltd., Warangal. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Opn), NPDC of A.P. Ltd. Kammam. 4 Kothagudem Club (Regd.No.927/75), Rep. by its-Secretary. Kothagudem, Kammam. 5 The Lions Club of Khammam, Khammam rep. by its Secretary. Khammam. ...RESPONDENTS (R1 is deleted as per Court order dated 24-06-2008 in WPMP No.15343 of 2008) Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for Respondents 2 & 3: SRI P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) Counsel for respondents 4 and 5: None appeared. The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Since these two writ petitions raise the common issues of fact and law, they are heard and being disposed of together by this common order. Heard Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.Transco. None appeared for respondent No.4 in W.P.No.9256 of 2001 and respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.21357 of 2002. The short question that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is whether rejection of petitioners’ claim for their absorption into the service of respondents 1 to 3 by the impugned communications is proper and legal. The reasons given in the impugned communications for rejection of their request for absorption in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-05-1997, are stated hereunder- “2. In pursuance of the above orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh it is to inform that you have been interviewed by the selection committee on 28-01-1999 along with other petitioners. 3. In this connection, it is also to inform that as per the award in I.D.No.78/92, you do not come under the purview of contract labour and also as per the observations of the Supreme Court in SLP No.1135/94 dated 11-7-94 Act 2 of 1994 applies to you and you are not eligible for appointment on regular basis. 4.As per select list communicated by the Chief Engineer Elecl.,/Warangal, Zone/Warangal the result of interview as follows. (a) T.Vasudeva Reddy The candidate is not eligible S/o Venkat Reddy as per B.P.Ms.No.36, 37 dt.18-5-97 and B.P.Ms.No.271 dt.31-12-97. (b) R.Srinivas The candidate is not eligible as S/o Pentaiah per B.P.Ms.No.36,37 dt.18-5-97 and B.P.Ms.No.271 dt.31-12-97. (c) K.Ramulu The candidate is not eligible S/o Laxmaiah as per B.P.Ms.No.36, 37 dt. 18-5-97 and B.P.Ms.No.271 dt. 31-12-97. (d) P.Ravi Kumar The candidate is not eligible as S/o Rajaiah per B.P.Ms.No.36, 37 dt.18-5-97 and B.P.Ms.No.271 dt.31-12-97 (e) R.Krishna Murthy The candidate is not eligible S/o Shiva Lingam as per B.P.Ms.No.36, 37 dt. 18-5-97 and B.P.Ms.No.271 dt. 31-12-97 (f) G.Prabhakar The candidate is not eligible as S/o Narayana per B.P.Ms.No.36, 37 dt.18-5- 97 and B.P.Ms.No.271 dt.31-12-97. (g) P.Sadanandam The candidate is not eligible as S/o Sheshadri per B.P.Ms.No.36, 37 dt.18-5- 97 and B.P.Ms.No.271 dt.31-12-97. (h) Y.Harish The candidate is not eligible as S/o Ram Narsaiah per B.P.Ms.No.36, 37 dt.18-5- 97 and B.P.Ms.No.271 dt.31-12-97. (i) G.Sateesh The candidate is not eligible as S/o Sammaiah per B.P.Ms.No.36, 37 dt.18-5- 97 and B.P.Ms.No.271 dt.31-12-97. In view of the above, your case for appointment is rejected as you have not fulfilled the above conditions/not covered the categories mentioned therein.” The above mentioned reasons were given in respect of the petitioners in W.P.No.9256 of 2001 and it is admitted by both the learned counsel that identical reasons are given for rejection of the claims of the petitioners in W.P.No.21357 of 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on common order dated 26-09-2000, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.2965 of 1997 and batch, wherein identical reasons were made the basis for rejection of the claims of the petitioners therein. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the said writ petitions, held as under: “Coming to the other writ petitions viz.,W.P.No.24778/1998 and 24294/1999, it is the case of the petitioners that they were engaged by the Chartered Accountants, who in turn were appointed by the Board for various Billing Works and other Accounting Works. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been working under the direct control of the Board Officers and their offices are situate in the premises of the Electricity Revenue Officer and thus they were at the disposal of the officers of the Board and hence, they should be treated as Contract Labour engaged by the Board and their cases should be considered in pursuance of the notification under BPMs.No.36. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order rejecting their cases is illegal and contrary to law. I need not go into the merits of the cases for the present as the rejection was only on the ground that the award of the Tribunal in I.D.No.78 of 1992 went against them, as there was no privity of contract. But that has no bearing on the facts of the present case because after the award was passed in pursuance of the notification under B.P.Ms.No.36, the cases of causal labour, contract labour were agreed to be considered to the award passed by the Tribunal. But however the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if they consider under B.P.Ms.No.36, the result would be the same and they are bound to reject the cases of the petitioners on the ground that they do not fall under the category of contract labour or casual labour. I am not persuaded to accept this contention. If sufficient material is placed before the authorities justifying the absorption in pursuance of B.P.Ms.No.36, there is no reason why they should not be considered. The learned counsel however apprehends that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, they would be treated as casual labour, and on that ground their cases may be rejected. But I am not rendering any finding any they are either contract labour or casual labour. It is always open for the petitioners to submit necessary documents as to whether they would fall in the category of contract labour or casual labour. It is only after submitting such documents, the authorities will consider and take appropriate decision uninfluenced by any tentative conclusions which they have arrived at and which they have expressed in their counters in these writ petitions.” On the reasoning as above, the learned Single Judge disposed of the two writ petitions, by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein afresh in pursuance of B.P.Ms.No.36. The learned Single Judge permitted the petitioners therein to file necessary documents to claim benefit of absorption under the said B.P.Ms. Having carefully considered the said order, and the reasons contained in the impugned communications, I am of the view that the petitioners are also entitled to be considered. It is not in dispute that the award in I.D.No.78 of 1992 came to be passed when B.P.Ms.No.36 was not issued and the claims made by the persons, who are similarly situated as the petitioners, for their absorption were rejected by the Labour Court. Similarly, the observations of the Supreme Court in SLP No.1135 of 1994 were made de hors B.P.Ms.No.36. In the context of B.P.Ms.No.36, there need not be any employee-employer relationship so long as the petitioners fall within the expression of “contract labour”. It is submitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that the order of the learned Single Judge referred to above received affirmation by the Division Bench. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the said Division Bench order in W.A.Nos.1410 and 1461 of 2000. Following the said order, the petitioners are also entitled to a similar relief. The learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.Transco placed before me copy of order dated 04-08-1998 in W.P.No.13501 of 1997, wherein the writ petition filed by certain persons engaged by a Lions Club was dismissed on the ground that they do not come within the purview of casual labour. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Judge has not considered the claims of the said persons from the perspective of ex-contract labour, who are also entitled to be considered for absorption in the said B.P.Ms. Therefore, the said order is of no assistance to the respondents. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petitions are allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.9256 of 2001 and respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.No.21357 of 2002 are directed to consider the claims of the petitioners as ex-contract labour subject to their filing proof of having been engaged by their respective Lions Clubs. If the respondents find the documents to be filed by the petitioners as genuine, the petitioners shall be considered for absorption in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18- 05-1997. The respondents shall complete this exercise, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners. As a sequel to disposal of main petitions, WPMP No.10725 of 2008 in W.P.No.9256 of 2001, filed for deletion of respondent No.1 from the array of parties, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 4th March, 2009 vrn