IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 36145 of 1998 Between The A.P. Power Generation Employees Union, rep. by its President Mr. M.A. Wazeer, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Palvoncha, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Member Secretary, A.P.S.E.Board Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, (O&M) Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Palvoncha, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Board in not reckoning the total period of service of the members of the petitioner union, and absorbing them only w.e.f. 6-12-96, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to the orders issued vide B.P.Ms.No. 272 dt. 31-12-97 and consequently direct the respondents to reckon the seniority of the members of the petitioner union, basing on the total period of service rendered by them as contract labour prior to absorption and their seniority on the basis of their total period of service as contract labour 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.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following order: This writ petition is instituted by a Trade Union, which sought for a writ of mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent-Electricity Board in not reckoning the total period of service of the members of the petitioner Union and absorbing them with effect from 06.12.1996 only, as illegal and arbitrary. The respondent-Electricity Board had been engaging the contract labour for the purpose of attending to various duties. Ultimately, the State Government passed orders through G.O.Ms.No.41, Labour Department, dated 23.09.1996, prohibiting employment of contract labour in 33 identified categories in the APSEB. Consequently, all such contract labour, who are found working as on 23.09.1996, the date on which the orders of prohibition have been passed, have been ordered to be absorbed into the service of the Electricity Board itself. To regulate this exercise, orders have been passed by the Electricity Board through B.P.(P & G.Per)Ms.No.272, dated 31.12.1997, and for the purposes of regulating their seniority, the service rendered by them as per the muster rolls and wage registers maintained by the contractor was taken as the basis. The Board seems to have taken another policy decision and announced the same through B.P.Ms.No.326 dated 14.03.1998 to absorb them with effect from 06.12.1996 with pecuniary benefits from 09.12.1997. After the policy decision taken by the Board and announced B.P.Ms.No.326, all those contract labour, are required to be absorbed into the service of the Electricity Board and various other institutions and other office establishments under its management with effect from 23.09.1996. If the Board as a policy, decided to extend the pecuniary or monetary benefits with effect from 09.12.1997, the same may have been ordered due to the constraints and their feasibility. Whether the Board has rightly and validly taken such a decision to extend the pecuniary benefit only from 09.12.1997, has got to be examined independently. A separate ground of challenge has to be raised against the same. However, the learned standing counsel Sri K. Chidambaram informs me at the Bar that such an issue was in fact engaging the attention of this Court in W.A.No.117 of 1998 and in case, this Court decides that the Board is not justified in extending the pecuniary benefits to the newly absorbed contract labour only from 09.12.1997, then I have no doubt in my mind that similar benefits will be extended to all the other contract labour absorbed and are now working with the respondent-Electricity Board as well. But as of now, in the absence of any challenge to the validity of the condition prescribed in B.P.No.326 dated 14.03.1998, I cannot be called upon to express any opinion thereof. Learned Standing Counsel Sri K. Chidambaram is right in pointing out that the writ petitioner being a Trade Union, has got to establish the prejudice suffered by its members, who have now been absorbed and who have been extended the benefit of pecuniary benefits only from 09.12.1997 and in the absence thereof, no such opinion can be expressed in this writ petition. Subject to what has been set out supra, the Writ Petition is dismissed, but however, without costs. _____________________________ NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO, J Dated:28.02.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Member Secretary, A.P.S.E.B., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Engineer, (O&M) Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Palvoncha, Khammam District. 3. 2CD copies