Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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., 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.