Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Brief case of the Workman:

7. The claim of the Workmanin the I.D is that he worked as Leave Reserve Contract Labour in coal handling plant under the control of Chief Engineer, VTPS, Ibrahimpatnam, running under APGENCO through a contractor by the name Sri T. Veeraiah from the period 01.04.1996 to 31.03.1997.

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 23.09.1996. Subsequently, another B.P. (P&G Per.) Ms.No.272, dated 31.12.1997 was also issued.

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:-