IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMAR^^ jJ (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE \ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 871fi OF 2017 -Vj m i o ‘hi .2- X A v’-; 1 KUNCHEAM Between: J. Kondala Rao, S/o. Paparao, Occupation Contract Labour Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District - Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District. Dr. NTTPS, 521 456, R/o D.No.1-22, Chilukuru Village, ...PETITIONER ANU 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal, Secretary Government, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories (GAS-II) Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The APGENCO, Rep. by Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyuth Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3. The Chief Engineer, O & M, VTPS, ibrahimpatnam District. to , Soudha, - 521 456,, Krishna ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue may an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents in implementing the Award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.86/2005, dated 31.1.2008 and G.O.Rt.No.519, Labour as made rule of law vide Employment, Training and Factories (LAB.I) Department, dated 12.3.2008 by the State Government besides declaring G.0.0.No.697/2002, dated 3.2.2003 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Power General Corporation Limited is void ab initio, consequently absorbing the Petitioner as Mazoor/ Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) with effect from 6-12- 1996. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 10796 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to implement the Award passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.86/2005, dated 31.1.2008 as made rule of law by the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.519, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (LAB.I) Department, dated 12.3.2008 in the light of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9793/2010, dated 31.1.2017 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petltioner:SRI PRAKASH BUDDARAPU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondents No.2,3: Nagaraju Naguru,(Standing Counsel For APGENCO) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010486652017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ElVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 8716/2017 Between: ...PETITIONER J. Kondala Rao, S/o. Paparao, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PRAKASH BUDDARAPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.Nagaraju Naguru, Standing Counsel For APGENCO 2.GP FOR LABOUR (TO) The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM W.P.No.8716 of 2017 Order:- The present writ petition was filed by the petitionerAA/orkman before this Hon’ble Court seeking direction against the APGENCO Authorities to implement the Award dated 31.01.2008 made in I.D.No.86 of 2005 passed by the Tribunal, which was also published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.519,dated 12.03.2008, G.O.No.697 of 2002, dated 03.02.2003 issued by the APGENCO ab initio and consequential direction to absorb the from 06.12.1996 into the APGENCO and to declare the as void petitioner with effect 2. For the sake of better understanding, the parties i.e., petitioner and respondent are herein after referred to as ‘Workman’ and ‘APGENCO’ respectively. 3. The subject matter in the lis revolves around Award dated 31.01.2008 made in I.D.No.86 of 2005 passed by the Tribunal, published in the A.P Gazette in G.O.Rt.No.519, dated 12.03.2008. 4. The Workman is mainly urging to implement the Award challenge. under 5. Heard Sri Prakash Buddarapu, learned counsel for the Workman as well as Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned Standing counsel for the APGENCO, at length. 2 Brief case of the Workman: 6 The claim of the Workman in the kD is that, he worked as a Helper coal breaker under the control of Chief in the Coal Handling plant as Engineer. VTPS Ibrahimpatnam, running under APGENCO through a contractor by the name of Balaji Transporters as on 23.09.1996 It is also averred in Claim Petition in the I.D that the Government of conferred under Sub-Section Contract Labour (regulation and Abolition) Act, 23.09.1996, whereby employment of 7. Andhra Pradesh, by exercising the powers (1) of Section 10 of the 1970 issued G.O.Ms.Nq.41 , dated 33 categories of employment specified therein Pradesh State Electricity Board was contract labour in prohibited in the erstwhile Andhra (APSEB). Subsequently, APSEB was entrusted with the activity of power generation) and APTRANSCO divided into APGENCO (which is (empowered to Transmission, Distribution, Supply of Electricity). In the instrumentality of State Government which is Nutshell, APGENCO is amenable to Article 12 of the Constitution of India above stated G.O, the erstwhile Andhra Board formulated guidelines in B.P (P & G Per.) Inconsonance with the 8. Pradesh State Electricity Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997 in respect of appointment of Contract Labour said 33 prohibited categories of employment in A.P Board by prescribing the appointment procedure. Later engaged against the State Electricity on. another B.P(P& g Per.) Ms.No,260 dated 19.12,1997 was issued Labour engaged against the are mentioned in the 1996. Subsequently, another B.P.(P&G Per.) specifically for absorption of the Contract above said 33 prohibited G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09. Ms.No.272, dated 31.12.1997 categories, which was also issued. 9. 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 W.P.No.679 of 1999 before the arraying the APGECO Authorities persons instituted erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh as the respondents. Whereunder, the non Die High Coun, oirecteo tne APGhNUO authorities case of the Workman for absorption but to consider the the same was rejected by the APGENCO through by way of orders. 10. Later on, the Letter orders dated 16.01.2001 the main ground that the Workman case of the Workman was rejected vide Common (EX.W9) by the APGENCO Authorities on did not fulfil the prescribed modalities 1997 read with B.P.Ms.No.272 It was further the under B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 18.05. 31.12.1997 for his absorption, that, he submitted photo for issuance of Gate Pass dated, case of the Workman copies of Service certificate Ex.W.4 & Application i.e., Ex.W.7. Despite the rejected by way of Common Order. At last same, his case was the Workman along with other persons filed another Writ Petition vide W.P.No.18524 of similarly placed 4 2001 before the High Court of A.P at Hyderabad, challenging the said Rejection Order dated 16.01.2001 passed by the APGENCO. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the same giving liberty to the Workman to approach Labour Court. Hence, the Workman approached the Tribunal by filing Industrial Dispute 86/2005 before Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Guntur seeking to declare the Rejection Orders dated 16.01.2001 as illegal, arbitrary and also sought for absorption into the APGENCO Establishment with all consequential benefits. Thus, the I D was 11. emanated. Counter Averments of the APGENCO: Conversely, APGENCO filed its counter inter alia contending that 12. the deployment of the Workman and others through contractor was on their own accord and it was not requisitioned by the APGENCO. It was 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 13. 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. It is also Therefore, the Workman is not eligible for absorption. contended that the Workman is not entitled for absorption inview of 5 decision held in Steel Authority of India Ltd Vs National Union of Waterfront Workers\Accord\ng\y the claim filed by the workman has been resisted. Summary of the Industrial Dispute: In the I.D.No.86 of 2005 proceedings, the Workman got examined himself as W,W.1 and got marked Ex.W1 to Ex.W.9. He also examined the manager of 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 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court framed the following Issues which 14. got are: i. Whether the Workman/petitioner worked in any one of the 33 abolished categories as Contract Labour as on 23.09.1996? i. To what relief? 15. The Tribunal had gone through the evidence of W.W.1 (Workman), who during his evidence, reiterated the assertions made in the claim petition. It had also gone through the evidence of W.W.2 (Managerof the Contractor), who engaged the workman in the APGENCO and his evidence on record was that, the Workman had been employed Contract Labour in APGENCO Establishment from the year 1994-95 and 1996-97(from 01.04.1994 to 31.08.1997). The Tribunal further examined the documentary evidence marked on behalf of the Workman i.e., Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.9. It had also taken into consideration of the evidence of the as a ■(2001) 7 see 1 6 witnesses of APGENCO i.e., M.W.1. the witness who deposed on behalf of the APGENCO however, no documentary evidence was submitted by them to support their version. The Tribunal had also observed that the said witness on behalf of APGENCO did not answer in concrete manner. And he deposed that, he whether the workman was employed in the 16. had no knowledge as to prohibited category, and further pleaded unawareness to the case asserted in the claim petition as well as the documentary evidences submitted by the W.W.I 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. Tribunal adjudicated the claim and counter averments and after considering the evidence on record, came to specific finding that the Workman worked in the APGENCO establishment as on 23,09,1996 in 17. The prohibited category and also observed that Workman is entitled for the dictum of Steel the absorption. However, the Tribunal relying upon 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 in their organisation by make regular appointments relaxing age and academic qualifications passed accordingly." etc. Award is 18. Subsequently, government 12.03.2008. However, since the same APGENCO, the workman filed W.P.No.8716 seeking to implement the Industrial absorption. also issued G.O.Rt No.519, dated was not implemented by the of 2017 before this Court Award and also sought for his Maintainability of I.D. by thp ^„rL.v„„. 19. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APGENCO at the outset, raised the point about the maintainability of very Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal. It was contended that the Contract Labour/Workman directly filed the dispute, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for absorption Section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial dispute is not valid. Hence, He further contended that although Workman laid down in the G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 23.09 without approaching the Government under Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the very proceedings are liable to be set aside, did not fulfil the conditions • 1996, the Tribunal had erroneously passed the Award in favour of the Workman. Hence, Award IS not valid. 20. Conversely, the learned Tribunal ought to have counsel for the Workman submits that the extended the automatic absorption to the L 8 consequential benefits from the year 1994 onwards. In learned counsel for the workman not stretched his Workman with all the remaining aspects submissions. Analysis: this Court is formulating the In light of above rival submissions following issues for consideration in the present lis 21. the initiation of Industrial Dispute u/s 2A (2) of the Act, 1947 directly by the Contract before the Tribunal without reference by me 'oovernment unoer section 1U-1 (c) or tne industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is maintainable or not? Whether the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court is liable to be interfered or not? Whether Industrial Disputes Workman Labour (i) (ii) Whether the workman is entitled for automatic absorption into the APGENCO Establishment or not? (ill) Issue (i):- along with others similarly placed No.18524 of 2001, before the High Court of A.P under, he challenged the rejection of absorption 22. Apparently, the Workman persons filed Writ Petition at Hyderabad, where (Ex.W.S) passed against him by the APGENCO. The High Court and other similar cases, and relying on orders after considering the facts of case the Judgment of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited case referred to supra, passed the Common orders (Ex.W.8), permitting the 9 Workman to raise claim, and further directed the as early as possible. an Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal about his concerned Tribunal to dispose of the same 23. Accordingly, the Workman rightly approached the Tribunal of specific orders of the High Court that, the State of Andhra Pradesh Act (32 of 87), Section 2 (27.07.1987) Disputes Act, 1947 and Sub-Section (2) in terms only. In this context, it is apt to note also brought an amendment vide A.P to the Section 2A of the Industrial which is extracted hereunder; ‘(2) Notwithstanding anything in S.10, any such workman as in specified in Sub-sec.(l) may, make application in the prescribed an manner direct to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein; and on receipt of such application, the Labour Court jurisdiction to adjudicate shall have upon any matter in the dispute, as if to or pending before it, in it were a dispute referred 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. 24. Thus, in view of A.P State Amendment, notwithstanding anything contained i which states that in Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute any Workman may directly make an application to the 25. In fact, in the instant case, while deciding the preliminary issue, the Tribunal by its Order dated 30.03.2007 held that the petition filed by the 10 reference under Section 10-1 (c) of the Industrial workman is treated as Disputes Act, 1947. In this context, it is appropriate to refer the dictum of unified High 26. Court at Hyderabad in P.S. Ramakrishna & Others. Vs. Member Generation Corporation Lfd^which Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Power issue and arrived its unequivocal findings in the dealt the very same following manner; 19. The Legislature, the Executive and the judiciary are the three organs of the State. The Act empowers opriate Government to refer a dispute to the Tribunal the appr But, it cannot be said that Courts are not empowered to refer for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal as the act a dispute 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 the Labour Court cannot refuse to industrial dispute raised by the petitioner as laid Industrial Tribunal or entertain the 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. 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 21. Hence, '2004(2) Labour Law Notes, 227 11 27. Therefore, ir view of the above reasons the filing of the I D by the Workman before the Tribunal Issue fii): . directly is rightly maintainable. 28. Coming to the second iissue, the central point in the Workman case rests on G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.09.1996 isstted by the Government of A.P. The said G.O was issued by the Government of A.P by exercising its power under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 and Abolition) Act, 1970 of Contract Labour (Regulation as to benefit the Contract Labour and , so prohibit 33 categories in the A.P. State the employment of Contract Labour iin Electricity Board, The said categories are as follows:- 1. Hospital Workers. 2. Coal Plant Operations. 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. AuxilatoryA.C. Plants, 12 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. 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. By relying upon the above said G.O as well as its consequential guidelines framed thereon to absorb the Contract Labours into the 29. Establishment, the workman, by stating his suitability, sought for 13 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, but however, directed the workman to approach the Tribunal. Thereupon, the Workman rightly instituted Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal way back in the year 2005 itself. 30. 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, M.W.1 pertaining to APGENCO) as well as the documentary evidence, 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) and (Ex.W-3) respectively. Service Certificate (Ex.W.4), Attendance Register (Ex.W-5) , Wage Register (Ex.W-6) , application for Gate passes of the APGENCO establishment (Ex.W.7), Copy of Order in W.P 18524 of 2001 (Ex.W.8), Rejection letter order passed by the APGENCO (Ex.W9). In light of the above voluminous record, the Tribunal by exercising its exclusive domain determined the issues, which predominantly involved highly disputed questions of facts and the reasons arrived by the Tribunal were based £ 14 comprehensive appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence available on record. upon a In fact, the APGENCO merely raised the self-same issues without demonstrating that findings of fact arrived by the Tribunal suffer from inherent flaws or amount to grave error of law. In view of above aspects and taking into consideration of the exclusive domain of the Tribunal, this Court do not find any legal infirmity or illegality in passing the Award. More so, as stated supra the APGENCO has failed to substantiate its assertions in the present lis. 31. The Tribunal consciously by 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; 32. In the result, petition is allowed. The Rejection set aside. order passed by the respondent is Respondents are directed to employ the petitioner as and when they make regular appointments in their age and academic organisation by relaxing qualifications etc. Award is passed accordingly’ 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 /nd/a(referred supra), arrived at plausible and reasonable findings pertaining to the disputed questions of facts in the lis. 33. 15 Issue 3: 34. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others \/s National Waterfront Workers and Others (referred to above), a five (05) 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 Labour aspects, overruled the Corporation Vs United Labour Union^ and its findings. For the sake of comprehensive &126 read as under: Union facets of the Contract dictum held in Air India Statutory in unequivocal words arrived view, the relevant paras 125 .... 125. I he upshot ot the above discussion IS outlined thus: (1)(a) (b) (4) .... (5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour c.- otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce r the establishment or for supply of contract labour for the establishment under or service, the any given result for . -. work of a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial '(1997) 9 see 377 16 : the workers of the benefit found to be not genuine but a legislations so as to deprive thereunder. If the contract is 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 establishment concerned subject to the conditions as the light of para 6 the may be specified by it for that purpose in hereunder. (6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRAAct in respect of concerned has been issued by the Government, prohibiting employment of contract the establishment appropriate labour in any process, operation or other work or any establishment and where in such process, operation or other establishment the principal employer intends to work of the employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if ' • y ■ 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 ” of the Constitutional By a plain reading of the above paras Mandate, it is clear that the mere the appropriate Government Contract Labour (Regulation 35. issuance of prohibition notification by under Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of and Abolition) Act, 1970, prohibiting the establishment, does not by itself In other words, a notification by the State Government by employment of Contract Labour in any entitle the contract labour to automatic absorption issuance of prohibition itself, will not confer the absolute rights in favour of the Contract Labour/ Workman for his absorption into the APGENCO Establishment. However, APGENCO desires to employ regular Workmen, mere the event that the in the erstwhile contract LabourAA/orkman, if preference shall be given to i 17 they are otherwise found suitable. In such case, the APGENCO is relating to maximum empowered to relax the conditions academic qualifications, while age and ensuring that the technical qualifications ratio-decedendi laid down in remain unchanged. In the light of above Steel Authority of /nc//a(supra) valid, the orders passed by the Tribunal the question of is not entitled in view of the facts IS reasonable and apt. Therefore, absorption as pleaded by the Workman automatic and circumstances involved in the lis. 36. The learned counsel for the Workman Order dated 31.01.2017 No.9793 Of 2010 placed reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court upon the in Civil Appeal and orders dated 24.02.2022 2017 of Division Bench of this Court i in Writ Appeal No. 1269 of an attempt to persuade this perusing the said orders, this Court finds that the in court. However, after facts and circumstances of those In both the above mentioned cases are distinguishable from the present case, cases, the Tribunal passed the Industrial of the Workmen therein into the Awards, directing the absorption Establishments. Whereas, i APGENCO to employ the Workman are made in the in the instant case, the Tribunal directed the as and when, regular appointments organisation, by relaxing age and academic qualifications etc., but did not order for automatic places reliance absorption. In this regard, this Court upon the observations made by the Five Judge 18 S(ee/ Authority of India's case (supra), which i IS Constitution Bench in extracted as under:- 126. We have used the expression "industrial adjudicator" by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires enquiry mlo disputed questions conveniently be made by High of facts which cannot Courts in exercise of jurisdiction Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate will be the Industrial under Article 226 of the authority to go into those issues Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review Conclusion:- and circumstances involved in the Constitutional Mandate laid Steel Authority of India Ltd.{sup^a), Having regard to the peculiar facts 37. lis and also taking into consideration the down by the five Judge Bench in inclined to pass the following order:- this Court is of 2017 filed by Workman is partly allowed ina the award dated 31 01.2008. made in l,O.No.86 of G.O.Rt.No.519 Writ Petition No.8716 (i) by confirming 2005 by the Tribunal, published in A.P Gazette in dated 12.03.2008 to the extent of setting aside the rejection APGENCO and directing the APGENCO and when, they make orders passed by the Authorities to employ the Workman, as APGENCO by relaxing the age and regular appointment in academic qualifications only. the institution of 2005, and also taking into In view of the considerable efflux of time since Industrial Dispute in the year (ii) 19 consideration of Const,tutional APGENCO initiates I Pementation of the award dated 31.01.2008 Tribunal in its true letter and spirit. ethos, this Court expeditious and effective expects that, steps towards the passed by the No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU assistant registrar // — SEC^TION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Principal Secretary, state of Andhra Pradesh, Training & Factories (GAS i-'I strict. 2- The Chairman & Vijayawada. 3. The Chief Engineer, District. ; on! r lOPUC, o SRI. Nagaraju Naguru, (Standing Counsel APGENCO) Advocate fOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR T. Three CD Copies Labour, Employment, Amaravathi, Guntur ") Department, Velagapudi, Managing Director, APGENCO Vidyuth, Soudha, O&M, VTPS, Ibrahimpatnarn - 521 456, Krishna For labour, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] nm HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.8716 of 2017 % 25 SEP 2025 m! ar ‘Co// o . Current Section . ^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS