THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.288 OF 2004 DATED 23RD OCTOBER, 2009 BETWEEN Valle Rajeswara Rao … Petitioner and The Chief Engineer, Vijayawada Thermal Power Station, A.P.Genco., Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. And Others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.288 OF 2004 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the NIL Award dated 31.01.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D.No.200 of 1997 and seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service in the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (for brevity, ‘the APGENCO’) with continuity of service, back wages and all other consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was as follows: He worked as a contract labourer/electrical helper in the VTPS, Ibrahimpatnam, from 01.04.1981 upto 07.05.1993. While so, he was involved in a criminal case, under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.113 of 1993 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. He was therefore retrenched from service on 07.05.1993. He was however acquitted in the criminal case by the competent Criminal Court on 31.08.1994. He approached the respondents seeking reinstatement in service in view of his acquittal in the criminal case and alleged that no action was taken thereupon. As the conciliation proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, failed the petitioner approached the Labour Court by way of an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’), seeking reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages along with all other attendant benefits. The Labour Court after considering the evidence, oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that on the basis of the material on record it was difficult to hold that the petitioner rendered service from 1981 upto 1993. Further, in view of the admitted position that the petitioner worked only as a contract labourer, the Labour Court was of the opinion that such labour, being employed by the contractor, could not be stated to be the employees of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for brevity, ‘APSEB’), the predecessor of the APGENCO. This was sufficient to non-suit the petitioner in as much as the relationship of master and servant was not made out between the APGENCO and the petitioner. However, the Labour Court went on to consider the entitlement of the petitioner to claim absorption in the APGENCO based upon the policy floated by the erstwhile APSEB providing for absorption of various categories of workers, including contract labourers, in its services. However, the Labour Court found that as per BPMS No.272 dated 31.12.1997 issued by the erstwhile APSEB, contract labourers who were in service on 23.09.1996 were alone entitled to absorption as per the policy of the APSEB. As the petitioner was admittedly not on the rolls on the said date 23.09.1996, the Labour Court concluded that he was not entitled to claim absorption based on the policy of the erstwhile APSEB. Accordingly, the Labour Court dismissed the petition. In the light of the admitted fact that the petitioner worked as a contract labourer, it cannot be held that he was employed by the erstwhile APSEB, the predecessor of the APGENCO. In the absence of such a relationship, the petitioner could not have maintained an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 seeking reinstatement in service under the APGENCO. Further, his case for absorption in the APGENCO would arise only in the event, he as a contract labourer, fulfilled the conditions of the policy set out in various BPMS issued by the erstwhile APSEB. The Labour Court upon consideration of the matter was of the opinion that the petitioner failed to fulfill the condition with regard to his being in service on the relevant date. Therefore, the Award of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner cannot be found fault with on any ground. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 23rd October, 2009. VGSR