Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Findings of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal:

5. It is the contention of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh that erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board (APSEB) has recognised certain unions which have got a representative capacity. Those unions are 1) A.P. Electricity Employees Union. 2) APSEB Employees Union 3) Telugunadu Vidyuth Karmika Sangam. All the employees were members of these three unions of the erstwhile APSEB and they are continuing in the respective wings even after trifurcation into three entities. Therefore, the unrecognised trade union cannot espouse the cause of the contract workers. The certificate of registration of appellant‟s trade union in Form-C is filed along with the claim petition. Recognition to the three trade unions referred to above was granted without taking up any verification process. As there is no law in force in the state of Andhra Pradesh to recognise trade unions and since there is no specific law or procedure for recognition of a trade union, there cannot be any distinction between the recognised and un-recognised trade unions. Therefore, the objection as to locus standi of the appellant is not tenable.

8. The objection that the contract workers are not posted in sanctioned posts is not tenable. Ex.W3 is one of the letters where the Divisional Engineer (operation) Rajampet wrote to the Superintendent Engineer, Kadapa, to furnish the particulars of Contract Labourers working against regular sanctioned, vacant posts pertaining to the operation division and a list was submitted under a prescribed proforma.

9. The contractors with whom the agreements are stated to have been entered for supply of contract workers were not holding licences as required under Section 12 of the CRLA Act, not even a single copy of licence of any contractor was produced by the department, on whom the burden lies to prove that the contract labourers were secured by lawful agreements through licensed contractors. The nature of work of the contract workers and the regular workers union is similar and it is perennial in nature, who control the work of the workers is demonstrated from the cross examination of the witnesses from the department like M.W.1 etc.

29. For appreciating the contention as to engaging workers directly by the Transmission Corporation or whether engaging through contractor is whether a camouflage intended to exploit the working class, the following aspects are relevant:

[i] There is no dispute about the persons listed in the Annexure-IV of the claim petition working as the Contract works in the writ petitioner Corporation, except one or two workers. Documents marked as Exs.M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-5, M-7, M-8 and M-12 testify that contract workers are working in the various divisions.

[ii] The evidence of the workers of the appellant union, particularly the workmen witness W.W.1 shows that he is working as Junior Lineman at substation Maidukur joined in 1992 and there are 5,220 sub stations under the control of divisional engineer, transmission lines sub stations at Kadapa. He is working along with two contract workers in the sub stations, who are also Junior Linemen. Certain memos were issued vide Ex.W1, W3, W4 and W5 consisting of the list of Contract Labour as on 31.08.1997 of TL & SS Division Kurnool(Ex.W1), list of contract labour working against sanctioned posts pertaining to operation division, Rajampet(Ex.W3) particulars of contract workers engaged in TL&SS division, Kadapa against regular sanctioned posts(Ex.W4) and also relating to list of Contract Labour working at various sub divisions of Telecom Division, Kadapa(Ex.W5).