THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 20306 of 2002 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in L.R.No.SE/NTS/KVR/ADM/C3/D.No.3626/2002 dated 3.8.2002, in respect of the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal; consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith absorb and regularize the services of the petitioners under B.P.Ms.No. 37 dated 18.5.1997. It is the case of the petitioners that they are contract labour under 1st respondent-Corporation, working at Nellore Thermal Station, under the control of 2nd respondent. They have joined in the years 1989, 1991,1991 and 1990 respectively and continued as such. While so, basing on the recommendations of the erstwhile A.P.S.E.B., the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Labour Employment Training & Factories (DASFF) issued G.O.Ms.No. 41 dated 23.9.1996 prohibiting contract labour in 33 categories. Basing on the said G.O., 1st respondent issued B.P.Ms.No. 37 dated 18.5.1997 for absorption and regularization of contract labour working under/against 33 abolished categories. 2nd respondent considered the case of the petitioners for absorption and regularization and issued orders in the year 1999 rejecting the claim of the petitioners, on the ground that they were engaged by various persons for attending the works of repairs and overhauling and they are maintenance works, which are periodical in nature and not continuous one and, therefore, they do not come under any of the 33 categories abolished by the Government and G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 18.5.1997 is applicable only in case of those who fall in 33 categories mentioned in G.O.Ms.No. 41 and are on rolls continuously as on 23.9.1996. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners and others filed W.P.No. 8120 of 1999 before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption of their services, if they come under the purview of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 30.6.2001. Pursuant to the said orders of this Court, 2nd respondent once again rejected the cases of the petitioners on the very same grounds which were taken earlier. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the Plant Engineer concerned himself has certified that the petitioners have worked against the abolished category and they were on rolls as on 23.9.1996 and they were given bona fide certificates by the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Electrical), Nellore Thermal Station to the effect that they were engaged against the abolished category and were on rolls as on 23.9.1996. Further, under the Contract Labour Regulation & Abolition Act, 1970 and the rules made thereunder, once certain category of employment is prohibited under Section 10(1) of the said Act, the person working under the said abolished category as on the date of abolishment is entitled to automatic absorption and regularization in regular vacancies. G.O.Ms.No. 41 dated 23.9.1996 has been issued basing on the recommendations of 1st respondent- Corporation, which itself speaks that suitable orders will be issued for absorption of contract labour, who worked under the abolished category and were on rolls as on 23.9.1996. Though their cases come under the purview of the G.O. referred above and B.P.Ms.No.37, instead of absorbing and regularizing their services, 2nd respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 3.8.2002 informing the petitioners that they are not entitled for absorption/appointment in terms of B.P.Ms.No. 37 dated 18.5.1997 read with B.P.Ms.No. 272 dated 31.12.1997, which is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, this writ petition. Respondents have filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners were never engaged either by the erstwhile APSEB or by the APGENCO under any valid contract agreement awarded to any of the contractors for supply of labour to work under the control of respondent-corporation at any point of time. Certain job works/works contracts such as repairs/replacement to machinery/equipment and annual overhaul works were awarded to certain Independent Job Work Firms/Agencies/Contractors on piece rate basis duly following the law relating to tenders. In turn, the said Independent Job Work Firms/Agencies/Contractors engaged their own labour to execute the job works/works contracts awarded to them. On completion of the work, the agreement ceases to exist or comes to end automatically. The respondent-corporation is only concerned with quantum of work and payment of bill to the contractors to the extent of work executed and nothing else. It is for the said contractors to continue or discontinue the services of the labour engaged by them in terms of the contract of agreement between them. The contention of the petitioners that they have worked as contract labour in respondent-corporation is not correct. All the qualified and eligible contract labour engaged against 33 prohibited categories of employment, who were on rolls as on 23.9.1996 and satisfied the guidelines framed in B.P.Ms.No. 37 dated 18.5.1997 have already been absorbed into the regular service of erstwhile APSEB, following the procedure framed for the purpose. Further, the guidelines framed in B.P.Ms.No. 37 dated 18.5.1997 read with B.P.Ms.No.260 dated 19.12.1997 and B.P.Ms.No. 272 dated 31.12.1997 for absorption of contract labour engaged against 33 categories of employment prohibited by the Government in its G.O.Ms.No. 41 dated 23.9.1996 were withdrawn by the respondent- corporation in the context of the judgment of the Supreme Court in SAIL’s case, since the whole matter has been examined and it is considered that it is not at all expedient to continue the above proceedings. Since the petitioners were engaged by the contractors and the nature of works in which they were engaged were periodical works, their cases for absorption and regularization have not been considered and rejected. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides. It appears, the proceedings under B.P (P&G Per) Ms.No. 37 dated 18.5.1997 issued by the A.P.S.E.B. states that under G.O.Ms.No. 41, Labour Department, dated 23.9.1996, Government of A.P. has prohibited employment of contract labour in 33 categories in the APSEB. Those contract labour working against these categories in various power stations of the Board have represented for regular appointment as they have been working since a long time. Therefore, the APSEB has issued guidelines for selection of contract labour working against 33 apolished categories. According to the petitioners, they are working as contract labour in the Coal Mill i.e. Item No.24 of the list of 33 prohibited categories of employment. The Superintending Engineer, NTS, Kovvur, Nellore District has addressed a letter to the General Manager (HR), AP Genco (VS), Hyderabad dated 30.6.2001 stating that the services of the petitioners were utilized by the contractors for repairs and overhauling of equipment in the plaint and the correction of boilers, P.A. Fans and Mills, whenever there is a breakdown or emergency in the plant. Thus, 10 contract labour have worked in 33 abolished category locations at NTS and they were on rolls of the contractor as on 23.9.1996 and all the names of the petitioners were also enumerated therein and they were recommended for consideration, since they were working as contract labour at that point of time. The following documents were also enclosed to the said letter: 1. Muster Rolls 2. Wage Sheets 3. Service Certificates 4. Speaking Orders 5. Copy of the counter 6. Copy of the work agreements 7. Copy of Gate passes However, their cases were rejected through the impugned order dated 3.8.2002 as under: “1. In the reference 2nd cited the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh pass orders directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption of their services if they come under the purview of the proceedings of the Superintending Engineer of the respondent corporation dated 30.6.2001. 2. Accordingly your case has been considered in the light of the proceedings of this office dated 30.6.2001 and the following observations are made. (i) You were engaged by the contractors for repairs and overhauling of the equipment in the plant at the locations of the Boilers, PA Fans and Mills whenever there was brake down in the plant. (ii) The works that you attended are only periodical and not continuous in nature. 3) You are hereby informed that the repairs and overhaul works of equipment in the locations of Boilers, Fans, and Mills, as such which are not included in any of the 33 abolished categories of employment notified in G.O.Ms.No. 41 dated 23.9.1996. 4) In view of the above you are informed that you are not entitled for absorption/appointment in terms of BP Ms No. 37 dated 18.5.1997 read with BP MS No. 272 dated 31.12.97 for the reasons mentioned above. The communication in this letter shall be deemed that your case has been considered in pursuance of the judgment dated 15.11.2001 of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh delivered in W.P. No. 8120/99 and the judgment has been implemented in its entirety”. However, it is seen from the material available on record that though they are appointed to repair works and overhauling of equipment, the same is perennial one in the coal mills. Not even one day the coal mill worked without their services. Therefore, by merely dubbing them as “engaged by the contractors for repairs and overhauling of the equipment in the plant at the locations of the Boilers, PA Fans and Mills whenever there was brake down in the plant”, the respondents cannot reject their cases for absorption, arbitrarily and illegally. They have been doing work continuously since 1989 without any break and they were in service as on 23.9.1996 and they have produced all the material including the muster rolls prepared by the Department and also the agreement of contract entered into by the Agency, certifying that they have worked with the contractors continuously. In spite of this, only on the ground that the petitioners have been engaged to attend the repair works and overhauling of equipment, they are not absorbed into service, which appears to be not correct. Except saying that the services of the petitioners were utilized by the contractors for repairs and overhauling of equipment, no other evidence has been placed before the Court. Even the certificate issued by the Contractor, which was counter-signed by the Departmental Engineer, would indicate that the petitioners have been working continuously since 1989 onwards. It is their case that no doubt they have been attending to repairs and breakdown services at the Boilers, PA Fans and Mills, but the said work was continuous and never stopped. It is further argued that the Boilers, PA Fans and Mills, where their services were engaged, were old one and not even a single day went without any breakdown of Boilers, Fans and Mills and they have been continuously attending to those works. The power production area is very sensitive and the Boilers being old one, every now and then on each day there were breakdowns and the petitioners were attending to the repairs. Further, on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were not regularly engaged and they were engaged intermittently and when a doubt was entertained by the Court, the matter was posted for being mentioned on 3.8.2010 and the respondents were directed to produce the records. Though the matter had undergone three adjournments on 16.8.2010, 23.8.2010 and 24.8.2010, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the records sent by the Superintending Engineer, NTS, Kovvur, Nellore District to the General Manager (HR), AP Genco, VS, Hyderabad through his letter dated 30.6.2001, wherein it was stated that the documents relating to Muster Rolls, Wage Sheets, Service Certificates, Speaking Orders, Copy of the Counter, Copy of the work agreements and Copy of Gate passes were enclosed to the said letter, are missing and they are not available. In fact, the Superintendent Engineer has addressed letter dated 30.6.2001, along with the abovementioned documents, on the requisition made by the General Manager (HR), Power Generation Corporation, Hyderabad dated 29.5.2001. On the basis of these two letters and the information furnished by the Superintending Engineer, NTS, Kovvur, Nellore District, the impugned order dated 3.8.2002 was passed, wherein it was stated that the works attended to by the petitioners were only periodical and not continuous in nature and that the repairs and overhaul works of equipment in the locations of Boilers, Fans and Mills, as such, are not included in any of the 33 abolished categories of employment notified in G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.9.1996. This appears to be an unfortunate statement made by the respondents. In fact, the work attended to by the petitioners admittedly relates to the Mills where the contract labour system has been prohibited under G.O.Ms.No. 41 dated 23.9.1996. Item No.24 of the Notification under the said G.O., issued under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (Control Act 87 of 1970) shows item No.24 as follows: “24. Coal Mill”. Thus, the contract system in the entire coal mill is prohibited. Therefore, it must be deemed that the petitioners have been in continuous service since 1989 and they were in service as on the date of consideration for regularization, apart from the fact that the work attended to by the petitioners is part and parcel of coal mills. It cannot be said that the work attended to by the petitioners on contract basis is not abolished. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for absorption and regularization of their services under B.P.Ms.No. 37 dated 18.5.1997, since the work attended to by them in the Coal Mill has been abolished under G.O.Ms.No. 41 dated 23.9.1996. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 3.8.2002 and directing the respondents to absorb and regularize the services of the petitioners under B.P.Ms.No. 37 dated 18.5.1997. Further, it must be deemed that the petitioners have been working continuously and as on the date of G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.9.1996. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: -8-2010. MVB.