Telangana High Court
WP/6719/2000 of Pativada Ramu Naidu, Vs Andhra Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation, on 31 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:6719 of 2000 Between: Pativada Ramu Naidu and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO:6719of2000
Between:
Pativada Ramu Naidu and others
AND
..... PETITIONERS
The AP Transmission Corporation and others
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. P.B.VIJAYA KUMAR
Counsel for the respondents:MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY
The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct therespondents to absorb the petitioners in the posts of Lower Division Clerk/Typist/Sub-Engineer in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36,dated 18.05.1997.
The petitioners are claiming to have worked as contract labourersunder the control of respondent No.4 in various divisions. They filed thiswrit petition for consideration of their cases for absorption as LowerDivision Clerks/Typists/Sub-Engineers in terms of B.P.Ms.Nos.36 and37, dated 18.05.1997.
Page 1 of 2
In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is inter alia averred that in Eastern Power Distribution Company and APTRANSCO, the Civil, Electrical and Maintenance Works are beingentrusted on contract basis by paying unit rates after calling foropen/limited tenders and get such works awarded to the lowesttenderers. It is further averred that AP TRANSCO/AP EPDCL,Visakhapatnam has no obligation towards the labour employed by thecontractors and that this aspect was clearly specified in the conditions ofthe agreement entered into with the contractors.
No reply affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained inthe counter-affidavit. Unless the petitioners are able to show that therespondents have engaged them either directly or through an authorisedcontractor for executing the work entrusted by the respondents, thepetitioners cannot be termed as contract labourers coming under the two Board Proceedings, namely, B.P.Ms.Nos.36 and 37, dated 18.06.1997.The learned counsel for the petitioners is not present at the hearing topoint out any illegality in the stand taken by the respondents.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.8858 of 2000filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31[st] DECEMBER, 2008.
kvni
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…