Telangana High Court
WP/17331/1995 of K.NAGABHUSHANAM Vs THE CHIEF ENGINEER on 27 December 2005
JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI Writ Petition No.17331 of 1995 Between: K.Nagaabhushanam and others … Petitioners And The Chief Engineer, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, A.P. State Electricity Board, Palwancha, Khammam District and another … Respondents :: ORDER:: Counsel for
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI
Writ Petition No.17331 of 1995
Between:
K.Nagaabhushanam and others … Petitioners
And
The Chief Engineer, Kothagudem ThermalPower Station, A.P. State Electricity Board,Palwancha, Khammam District and another … Respondents
:: ORDER::
Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Chandraiah Sunkara for Sri C. Narender Counsel for Respondents : Smt. E. Urmila This is a petition for issuance of mandamus to the respondents not to discontinuethe services of the petitioners and to regularize their services.
The petitioners were engaged as contract labourers at the generating stations ofA.P. State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’). They filed this petitionapprehending threat of discontinuance of their engagement.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government of Andhra Pradeshabolished the contract labour system and the petitioners were absorbed in theservices of the Board.
Today, Sri Chandraiah Sunkara has filed additional affidavit of petitioner No.6,paragraphs 2 to 4 of which read as under:
“2. It is submitted that the writ petition has been filed questioning the action ofthe 1[st] respondent herein in not allowing the petitioners to attend the dutiesw.e.f. 1-7-1995 without assigning any reason as illegal, arbitrary and violativeof Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also Section 25 H ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, consequently seeking a direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioners in the respondent-Board whilecontinuing the petitioners in the respondent-Board.
3. It is submitted that this Honourable Court has been pleased to grant theinterim direction by order dated 4-8-95 in WPMP No.21161/95 inW.P.No.17331/95.
4. It is submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Hon’bleHigh Court the petitioners were continued in service. Thereafter theGovernment of A.P. abolished the contract labour system in respect of 33categories of employment vide G.O.Ms.No.41, Labour Employment (Training& Factories) Dept., dated 23-9-96 and the erstwhile A.P.S.E.B. has takenpolicy decision vide B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 18-5-1997, B.P.Ms.No.260, dated19-12-1997 and B.P.Ms.No.272, dated 31-12-1997 to absorb the contractlabour working in the 33 abolished categories and are continuing as on 23-9-1996. Accordingly all the petitioners were absorbed w.e.f. 6.12.1996 videproceedings dated 18-3-1998 as Mazdoors / J.P.As. based on theirqualifications, as such no further orders are necessary in this writ petition.Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to pass appropriate ordersaccordingly.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners says that in view of the above development, thewrit petition may be disposed of as infructuous.
Learned counsel for the respondents says that she does not have any objection.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous.
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
December 27, 2005
VR / svs