Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A. Srinivasa Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 20 June, 2025
APHC010139272008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3504]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 22672/2008
Between:
The Chairman/managing Director, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
A Srinivasa Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. Nagaraju Naguru, Standing Counsel For APGENCO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LABOUR
2. PRAKASH BUDDARAPU
WRIT PETITION NO: 8670/2017
Between:
A. Srinivasa Rao, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PRAKASH BUDDARAPU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NAGARAJU NAGURU, (STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO )
2. GP FOR LABOUR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION Nos.22672 of 2008 and 8670 of 2017
Common Order:-
W.P No.22672 of 2008 has been filed by the A.P. Power Generation Corporation (herein after for the sake of brevity referred to as „APGENCO‟), being aggrieved by the Award dated 31.01.2008 made in I.D No.128 of 2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guntur/ 2nd Respondent (in short „Tribunal‟) and seeking quashing of the same. The said I.D was filed by the 1st Respondent/Workman, which was published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.514, dated 12.03.2008, whereunder, the Tribunal had passed an Award in I.D No.128 of 2004 by directing the APGENCO to employ the petitioner as and when they make regular appointment in their Organisation by relaxing age and academic qualifications etc.
2. Whereas, W.P No.8670 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner/Workman before this Hon‟ble Court seeking direction against the APGENCO Authorities to implement the Award dated 31.01.2008 made in I.D No.128 of 2004 passed by the Tribunal, which was also published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.514, dated 12.03.2008, and to declare the G.O.No.697 of 2002, dated 03.02.2003 issued by the APGENCO as void ab initio and consequential direction to absorb the petitioner with effect from 06.12.1996 into the APGENCO.
3
3. For the sake of better understanding, the parties i.e., petitioner in W.P No.8670 of 2017 & respondent in W.P No.22672 of 2008 and the petitioner in W.P No.22672 of 2008 & respondent in W.P No.8670 of 2017. herein after referred to as „Workman‟ and „APGENCO‟ respectively.
4. In the above two Writ Petitions, subject matter revolves around one Award dated 31.01.2008 made in I.D No.128 of 2004 passed by the Tribunal, published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.514, dated 12.03.2008.
5. Whereas, the APGENCO had sought to quash the Award dated 31.01.2008 and conversely, the Workman is urging to implement the very same Award under challenge. There being a commonality of law and facts concerning these Writ Petitions, and also taking into consideration of common submissions by the respective Counsels, this Court ventures to pass Common Order in the above Writ Petitions.
6. Heard Sri Nagaraju Nagaru, learned Standing counsel for the APGENCO as well as Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned counsel for the Workman, at length.
Brief case of the Workman:
7. The claim of the Workman in the I.D is that he worked as Leave Reserve Contract Labour in the coal handling plant under the control of Chief Engineer, VTPS Ibrahimpatnam running under APGENCO through a 4 contractor by the name of Sri P.S.V. Prasada Rao from the period 01.05.1995 to 16.03.1998.
8. It is also averred in Claim Petition in the I.D that the Government of Andhra Pradesh by exercising the powers conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 issued G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996, whereunder, it prohibited employment of Contract Labour in 33 categories of employment specified therein, in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB).
9. Subsequently, APSEB was divided into APGENCO (which is entrusted with the activity of power generation) and APTRANSCO (empowered to Transmission, Distribution, Supply of Electricity). In a Nutshell, APGENCO is the instrumentality of State Government which is amenable to Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
10. Inconsonance with the above stated G.O, the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board formulated guidelines in B.P (P & G Per.) Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997 in respect of appointment of Contract Labour engaged against the said 33 prohibited categories of employment in A.P State Electricity Board by prescribing the appointment procedure. Later on, another B.P (P& G Per.) Ms.No.260 dated 19.12.1997 was issued specifically for absorption of the Contract Labour engaged against the above said 33 prohibited categories, which are mentioned in the G.O.Ms No.41, dated 5 23.09.1996. Subsequently, another B.P.(P&G Per.)Ms.No.272, dated 31.12.1997 was also issued.
11. It is further case of the Workman that inspite of having pre-requisites, he was not absorbed into the service by the APGENCO, as such, the Workman along with the similarly placed persons instituted W.P No.6478 of 1999 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh arraying the APGENCO Authorities as the respondents, whereunder, the Hon‟ble High Court on 09.10.2000, directed the APGENCO authorities to consider the case of the Workman for absorption without reference to the Leave Reserve employment etc and as the same was not fructified, the Workman filed a contempt. The said contempt case was closed recording the submission of the APGENCO that out of 27 petitioners, 19 members were absorbed and also with a further direction to APGENCO to re-verify the records in respect of workman and others.
12. Later on, the case of the Workman was rejected vide rejected order dated 23.06.2001 by the APGENCO Authorities on the main ground that the Workman did not fulfil the prescribed modalities under B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997 read with B.P.Ms.No.272 dated, 31.12.1997 for his absorption. It was the case of the Workman that, he submitted photocopies of Service certificates (Ex.W.4) & (Ex.W.5) and copy of gate pass (Ex.W.6) issued by the Chief Engineer, VTPS, Ibrahimpatnam. Despite the same, his case was rejected by way of Common Order.
6
13. At last, the Workman along with other similarly placed persons filed another Writ Petition vide W.P.No.13587 of 2002 before the High Court of A.P at Hyderabad, challenging the said Rejection Order dated 23.06.2001 passed by the APGENCO and the same was disposed of, by clubbing with other batch of cases in terms of common orders passed in W.P.No.1246 of 1999 & batch, i.e., with a direction to the Workman to approach the Tribunal for his absorption and further, the concerned Tribunal was directed to dispose of such dispute raised by the Workman. Hence, the Workman approached the Tribunal by filing Industrial Dispute seeking to declare the Rejection Orders dated 23.06.2001 as illegal, arbitrary and also sought for absorption into the APGENCO Establishment with all consequential benefits. Thus, the I.D was emanated.
Counter averments of the APGENCO:
14. Conversely, APGENCO filed its counter inter alia contending that the deployment of the Workman and others through contractor was on their own accord and it was not requisitioned by the APGENCO. It had pleaded that there was no Master and Servant relationship between the Workmen and APGENCO. It is further version of the APGENCO that the workman was not on rolls as on the requisite date and did not fulfil the conditions prescribed in B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997 and B.P.Ms.272, dated 31.12.1997. Therefore, the Workman is not eligible for absorption. It is further contended that the Workman is not entitled for absorption in view of decision held in 7 Steel Authority of India Ltd Vs National Union of Waterfront Workers1. Thereby resisted the claim filed by the Workman.
Summary of the Industrial Dispute:
15. In the I.D No.128 of 2004 proceedings, the Workman got examined himself as W.W.1 and marked Ex.W1 to Ex.W13. He also got examined the contractor as W.W.2 in support of his case. On behalf of the APGENCO, M.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked by them. Basing upon the above contentions, the Tribunal framed the following Issues which are:-
i. Whether the Workman/petitioner worked in any one of the 33 abolished categories as contract labour as on 23.09.1996?
ii. To what relief?
16. The Tribunal had gone through the evidence of W.W.1,(workman), who stated elaborately about his assertions raised in the claim petition in his evidence too. It had also gone through the evidence of W.W.2,(contractor), who engaged the workman in the APGENCO and his evidence on record was that the Workman had worked as a Contract Labour in APGENCO Establishment. It had gone through documentary evidences marked on behalf of the Workman i.e., Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.13. It had also taken into consideration of the sole witness evidence of APGENCO i.e., M.W.1, who deposed on behalf of the APGENCO. But did not mark any documentary evidence to substantiate their version.
(2001) 7 SCC 1 1 8
17. The Tribunal had also observed that the said witness did not answer in concrete manner and he deposed that, he doesn‟t have any knowledge in respect of the Workman worked in the prohibited category or not and further pleaded about unawareness to the case asserted in the claim petition as well as the documentary evidences submitted by the W.W.1 and W.W.2. In a Nutshell, the Tribunal observed that, M.W.1 pleaded unawareness and has no knowledge about every aspect. It had finally come to the opinion that M.W.1 failed to substantiate the APGENCO‟s version.
18. The Tribunal adjudicated the claim and counter averments and also considering the evidence on record, came to specific finding that the Workman worked in the APGENCO establishment as on 23.09.1996 in the prohibited/abolished category and also observed that Workman is entitled for absorption. However, the Tribunal relying upon the dictum of Steel Authority of India (supra) passed the Award and the relevant portion of the same is read as under:
".......In the result, petition is allowed. The Rejection order passed by the respondent is set aside. Respondents are directed to employ the petitioner as and when they make regular appointments in their organisation by relaxing age and academic qualifications etc. Award is passed accordingly."
19. Thus, the said Award has been challenged by the APGENCO, seeking to set aside the same by way of W.P No.22672 of 2008.Wherein, this Court granted interim orders against the I.D Award and the Workman was under the 9 mistaken impression that the Award passed by the Tribunal had attained finality, but the said Award was not implemented by the APGENCO. On such premise, Workman filed W.P No.8670 of 2017 before this Court seeking to implement the Industrial Award and also sought for his absorption. Submissions advanced by the respective Counsels:
20. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APGENCO at the outset, raised the point about the maintainability of very Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal on the ground that the Contract Labour/Workman directly filed the dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for absorption, without approaching to the Government under Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not valid. Hence, very proceedings are liable to be set aside. He further contended that although Workman did not fulfil the conditions laid down in the G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996, the Tribunal had erroneously passed the Award in favour of the Workman. Hence, Award is not valid.
21. Conversely, learned counsel for the Workman submits that the Tribunal ought to have extended the automatic absorption to the Workmen with all consequential benefits from the year 1996 onwards. The learned counsel has not stretched his submissions in respect of remaining aspects. Analysis:
22. In the light of above rival submissions, this Court is formulating the following issues for consideration in the present lis:- 10
(i) Whether the initiation of Industrial Dispute U/s 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly by the Contract Workman Labour before the Tribunal without reference by the Government under Section 10-1 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is maintainable or not?
(ii) Whether the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court is liable to be interfered or not?
(iii) Whether the workman is entitled for automatic absorption into the APGENCO Establishment or not?
Issue (i):-
23. Apparently, the Workman along with the similarly placed persons filed Writ Petition No.19583 of 1999 & batch, before the High Court of A.P at Hyderabad., whereunder, they challenged the rejection of absorption orders passed against them by the APGENCO. The High Court by clubbing together the similar cases, and also following the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited case referred to supra, passed the Common orders, permitting the Workman and others to raise an Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal about their claim and also further directed the concerned Tribunal to dispose of the same as early as possible.
24. Accordingly, the Workman rightly approached the Tribunal in terms of specific orders of the High Court only. In this context, it is apt to note that, the State of Andhra Pradesh also brought an amendment vide A.P Act (32 of 87), Section 2 (27.07.1987) to the Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and Sub-Section (2), which is extracted hereunder:- 11
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in S.10, any such workman as in specified in Sub-sec.(1) may, make an application in the prescribed manner direct to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein; and on receipt of such application, the Labour Court shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any matter in the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with the provisions of this, Act; and accordingly all the provisions of shall apply in relation to such dispute as they apply in relation to any other industrial dispute."
25. Thus, in view of A.P State Amendment, stating that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, any Workman may make an application straight away to the Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute.
26. In fact, in the instant case, the Tribunal had already passed the Order dated 30.03.2007, while deciding the preliminary issue, holding that the petition filed by the workman is treated as reference under Section 10-1 (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also in view of earlier High Court direction too.
27. In this context, it is appropriate to refer the dictum of unified High Court at Hyderabad in P.S Ramakrishna & Others Vs Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd2, which dealt the very same issue and arrived at its unequivocal findings in the following manner:-
"......19. The Legislature, the Executive and the judiciary are the three organs of the State. The Act empowers the appropriate Government to refer a dispute to the Tribunal But, it cannot be said 2 2004(2) Labour Law Notes, 227 12 that Courts are not empowered to refer a dispute for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal as the act of the Court is also the act of the State.
20. Further S.2A (2) has been inserted by the State of Andhra Pradesh, stating that notwithstanding anything contained in S.10 of the Act, any workman may make an application directly to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute Therefore, there is yet another reason where the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court cannot refuse to entertain the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner as laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra, which is binding on the Labour Courts or the Tribunals as the case may be.
21. Hence, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as the case may be, is bound to entertain the dispute raised by the petitioners pursuant to the orders of this Court, treating it as a reference made under S.10(1) of the Act....."
28. Therefore, in view of the above reasons the filing of the I.D directly by the Workman before the Tribunal is rightly maintainable. Issue (ii):-
29. Coming to the second issue, the central point in the Workman case rests on G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.09.1996 issued by the Government of A.P. The said G.O issued by the Government of A.P. by exercising its power under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970., so as to, benefit the Contract Labour and prohibit the employment of Contract Labour in 33 categories in the A.P State Electricity Board. The said categories are as follows:-
1. Hospital Workers.
2. Coal Plant Operations.13
3. Soot blowing Operations.
4. Ash Plant Operations.
5. Breaking of Coal.
6. Boulders of Grid.
7. Coal feeding to units through reclamation grids of conveyor.
8. Crusher House Operations.
9. Grid Jam Cleaning at Wagon trippler and Coal Plant.
10. Al Feeder Operations.
11. Hydrogen Plant Operations.
12. Water Boys.
13. Auxilatory A.C. Plants.
14. Jam Removers
15. Mixing of Chemicals.
16. Collection of Samples:
17. Stacker.
18. Reclaimers.
19. Sweeper
20. Sanitary Mazdoors.
21. Scavengers.
22. Pump House Operations.
23 Electricians.
24. Coal Mill.
25. Burner Floor.14
26. Raw Water Pump Operations.
27. Water Treatment.
28. Dust Electro Static Operations 29 Otis Elevator Plant Maintenance.
30 Instruments
31. Helpers.
32. Pulverising Mills.
33. Lab Assistants.
30. By relying upon the above said G.O as well as its consequential guidelines framed thereon, to absorb the Contract Labourers into the Establishment., the Workman by stating his suitability, sought for absorption into the APGENCO Establishment. The workman initially approached the Hon‟ble High Court, by challenging the rejection of absorption orders into APGENCO, whereunder, this Court did not exercise its powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, directed the workman to approach the Tribunal. Thereupon, the Workman rightly instituted Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal long back.
31. The Workman also placed his evidence as well as documentary proofs to substantiate his assertions. Similarly, the APGENCO resisted the said claim of the workman. But the Tribunal by pursuing the respective pleadings, depositions (W.W.1, W.W.2 pertaining to the Workman as well as M.W.1 pertaining to APGENCO) as well as the documentary evidences, i.e., 15 G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09.1996 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh(Ex.W.1), B.P.Ms.No.37 dated 18.05.1997 and B.P.Ms.No.272 dated 31.12.1997 (Ex.W-2) & (Ex.W-3), Service Certificates (Ex.W.4) to (Ex.W.7), copy of order in W.P.No.6478 of 1999 (Ex.W.8), which was initially filed by the Workman and others, copy of Contempt Orders (Ex.W.9), representation of the Workman (Ex.W.10), list of Regular & Leave reserve Contract Labour (Ex.W.11), rejection proceedings passed by the APGENCO (Ex.W.12), wherein, it rejected the Workman‟s absorption, and copy of orders passed in the W.P.No.13587 of 2002 & batch (Ex.W.13) instituted by the Workman before the High Court of A.P challenging the inaction of APGENCO in absorbing the workman, whereunder, the Workman was directed to approach the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance after taking into consideration the fact that the APGENCO, did not submit any documentary proofs to demolish the version of the Workman.
32. In the light of the above voluminous record, the Tribunal by exercising its exclusive domain, determined the issues, which are predominantly highly disputed questions of facts and the reasons arrived by the Tribunal were based upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record.
33. In fact, the APGENCO merely raised the self-same issues without demonstrating such finding of facts arrived by the Tribunal suffers from inherent flaws and amounts to grave error of law. In view of the said aspects taking into consideration of the exclusive domain of the Tribunal, this Court do 16 not find any legal infirmity or illegality in passing the Award. More so, as stated supra the APGENCO is not able to substantiate its assertions in the present lis.
34. The Tribunal consciously, following the case of the Steel Authority of India Ltd (referred above) in its true letter and spirit decision only, had passed the Award in the instant case, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
".....In the result, petition is allowed. The Rejection order passed by the respondent is set aside. Respondents are directed to employ the petitioner as and when they make regular appointments in their organisation by relaxing age and academic qualifications etc. Award is passed accordingly"
35. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the Tribunal within the touchstone of Constitutional Court mandate made in the case of Steel Authority of India (referred supra), arrived at plausible and reasonable findings pertaining to the disputed questions of facts in the lis. Issue (iii):
36. In Steel Authority of India Ltd and Others Vs National Union Waterfront Workers and Others (referred to above), a five (5) Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 along with its object and intendment by scanning the relevant facets of the Contract Labour aspects, overruled the dictum held in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United 17 Labour Union3 and in unequivocal words arrived its findings. For the sake of comprehensive view, the relevant paras 125 & 126 read as under:
"....125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus:
(1)(a) .......................
(b) .....
(2)(a) ....
(b) ....
(3) ....
(4) ....
(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.
(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications....."3
(1997) 9 SCC 377 18
37. By a plain reading of the above paras of the Constitutional Mandate, the mere issuance of prohibition notification by the appropriate Government under Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970, prohibiting the employment of Contract Labour in any establishment, does not entitle the contract labour to automatic absorption. In other words, a mere issuance of prohibition notification by the State Government by itself, will not confer the absolute rights in favour of the Contract Labour/ Workman for his absorption into the APGENCO Establishment. However, in the event of APGENCO desires to employ regular Workmen, in that case, it shall give preference to the erstwhile contract Labour/Workman, if otherwise finds fit. In such course, the APGENCO by relaxing the conditions in respect of maximum age, academic qualifications, without altering the technical qualifications remain unchanged.
38. In the light of above ratio-decedendi in Steel Authority of India (supra), the orders passed by the Tribunal is valid, reasonable and apt. Therefore, the question of automatic absorption as pleaded by the Workman is not entitled in view of the facts and circumstances involved in the lis.
39. Learned counsel for the Workman placed reliance upon the Order dated 31.01.2017 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9793 of 2010 and orders dated 24.02.2022 in Writ Appeal No.1269 of 2017 of Division Bench of this Court, in an attempt to persuade this Court. However, after perusing the said orders, this Court finds that, the facts and circumstances in those cases 19 are distinguishable from the present case. In both the cases, the Tribunal passed the Industrial Awards, directing the absorption of the Workmen therein into the Establishments. Whereas, in the instant case, admittedly the Tribunal directed the APGENCO to employ the Workman, as and when, they make regular appointments in the organisation by relaxing age and academic qualifications etc., but did not order for automatic absorption. In this regard, this Court is relying upon the observation made by the five (5) Judge Bench in Steel Authority of India‟s case (supra), which is extracted as under:-
"......126. We have used the expression "industrial adjudicator" by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires enquiry into disputed questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be the Industrial Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review....."
Conclusion:-
40. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the lis and also taking into consideration the Constitutional mandate laid down by the five Judge Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra), this Court is inclined to pass the following order:-
(i) Writ Petition No.22672 of 2008 filed by APGENCO is dismissed.
(ii) Writ Petition No.8670 of 2017 filed by Workman is partly allowed by confirming the award dated 31.01.2008, made in I.D.No.128 of 2004 by the Tribunal, published in A.P 20 Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.514 dated 12.03.2008 to the extent of setting aside the rejection orders passed by the APGENCO and directing the APGENCO Authorities to employ the Workman, as and when, they make regular appointment in APGENCO by relaxing the age and academic qualifications only.
(iii) In view of the considerable efflux of time since the institution of industrial dispute in the year 2004, and also taking into consideration of Constitutional ethos, this Court expects that, APGENCO initiates expeditious and effective steps towards the implementation of the award dated 31.01.2008 passed by the Tribunal in its true letter and spirit.
No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 20.06.2025 GVK