Sang 1234

  All contrat labour interviewed showingthe details in bonafide certificates admitted for absorption of contract labour into regualr vacancies tey ahve to satisfy the two conditions (1) they have to be on the muster rolls as on 23-9-1996 and (2) they must have worked agaisnt one of the 33 abolished categories mentioend in G.O.Ms.No.41, dt.23-9-1996.  Further the evidence on record has made clear that duirng the interviews held by the managment the workmen/contract labbor submitted the copies of attendnace registers and wage registers, gate passes fro the month of September, 1996 ans also submittedservice certificates issued by the contractors and issued by the Divisional Engineer, Addl.Divisional Engineers and Supervisors etc.,  After completion of interviews some of the contract labour were selected for absorption into regular emploment and  some  were not.  Therefore aggrieved by the rejection cases of 222 workmen/contract labour for absorption into the establishement as Jr.Plant Attendnats/Mazdoors they have filed nearly 80 writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court for getting the result whenthe respondnet failed to decare thersult and also challenign the rejection orders.  The then Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the direct hemanagment to re-consider their cases as per B.P.Ms.No.37 dt.18-5-1997 accordingly the petitioners/workmen  have been re-examined by the Board and accordingly the Board has issued interview call letters to the petitioners/workmen statign that as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, they have to appear befroe the Selection Committed along with all the documetns as mentioned therein for verification.  Accordingly all the petitioners/workmen have been interviewed by the Board and submitted their doucmnts.  After verification of the documents and conducting the interviews the rspondent again rejected the cases of petitioners/workmen on the reason that as they have failed to fulfill the two conditions i.e, (1) they have to be on the muster rolls as on 23-9-1996 and (2) they must have worked agaisnt one of the 33 abolished categories mentioend in G.O.Ms.No.41, dt.23-9-1996.  Aggrieved by the said orders, some of the petitioners have preferred writ peittions before the then Hon'ble High Court and later they have withdraen their writ petitions.  Accordingly the grievance of the petitioners/workmenfro not selectingthem for absorption inot regular vacancies, has been referred fro adjudication.  All the petitioners have claimed in one tone thatthey have satisfied all the conditions of the Board while selection process but their claims were ejected without proper reasons.  As stated above, in support of their evidence ofthe petitioenrs they havegot marked Exs.W1 to W455.  The service certificate issued by different contractors under Exs.W5, 15 ....................................................................................................  As discussed above in the siad certificates there is no reference to the contract work awarded to the said contractors.  Further it is also not referred to whether they were working within the premises of GENCO.  Further the said certificates wer also not counter signed by GENCO Officials.  Further the saidcertificates were cnisdered and speaking orders were also issued by rejecting their candidature.  therefore the said certificates cannot be looked into for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute.  Therefore the said certificates canot be relied for consideration.  Apart from that , the petitioenrs also got marked  some of the service certificates under Exs.W23, 158, 171, 194, 284, 371 alleged to have been issued by the then Divisional Engineer, KTPS.  The said certificagtes do not bear the dates and place of issuance ofthe said certificates.  Further the saidcertificates referred to the agreements subsequent to 23-9-1996.  Therefore the said certificates cannot be relied on fro the works executed prior to issuance of the works contracts to the contrators.  

SANGEETA 123

 In view of the above facts and circumstsnce discused in detail as  well as in view of the oral and documentary evidence submitted by both the parties it is ckear that though th reference was made for  222 workmen, but at present out of 222 only 48 petitioenrs/workmen are contesting the case.  Accordingly the Counsel for the petitioenrs submittd a Memo by giving the dtails of contesting petitioners/workmen , accordingly the following petitioners/workmen are contesting as per the Annexure enclosed to the claim statement i.e., Sl.No.1/P.V. Rammohan Reddy, Sl.No.3/R. Sambaiah, Sl.No.5/P. Nageswar Rao, Sl.No.10/M. Nagarjuna, Sl.No.14/v. Kameswar rao, Sl.No.15K. Ratna Rao, Sl.No.16/N. Venkateshwarlu, Sl.No.19/T. Rama Rao, Sl.No.22/T. Srinivasa Rao, Sl.No.25/A.S. Subrahmanyeswar Rao, Sl.No.34/V. Muthaiah, Sl.No.36/N. Jagadesh Kumar........... Sl.No.38/N. Srinu, Sl.No.40/P. Anand Babji, Sl.No.42/P. Srinivasa Rao, Sl.No.43/N. Narsaiah, Sl.No.49/M.Gurvaiah, Sl.No.53/P. Krishna, Sl.No.58/M.A. Ahmed, Sl.No.61/M.A. Sayed Faruku Ali, Sl.No.84/K. Veeraiah, Sl.No.89/M.A. Sajid, Sl.No.111/M. Manya, Sl.No.109/G. Lingaiah, Sl.No.114/M. Anand, Sl.No.115/Islavath Krishna, Sl.No.116/Bhukya Laxman, Sl.No.117/Bhukya Vasuram, Sl.No.119/A. Ghani, Sl.No.120/V. Babji, Sl.No.121/G.Muthaiah, Sl.No.125/Siddula Krishna , Sl.No.126/Malothu Mangi, Sl.No.127/B. Bhadru, Sl.No.129/B. Ramulu, Sl.No. 148/SK. Masthan Vali, Sl.No.172/Y. Krishna, Sl.No.173/Md. Sadiq Ahmed, Sl.No.177/K. A. Sastry, Sl.No.178Y.V.R.K. Chandrasekhar, Sl.No.179/S. Aswin Kumar, Sl.No.181/A. Naga Raju, Sl.No.183/B. Anil Kumar, Sl.No.184, K. Nageswar Rao, Sl.No.185/Md. Sadiq Khan, Sl.No.186/B. Nageswar Rao,  claimed to be working through the congtractors as on 23-9-1996 in the respondent management.  Accordingly the present  reference has been  constrained to the dispute of 48 petitioners/workmen.  Further admittedly  the power generating Corporation has been awarding works for execution to contractors within the premises of GENCO /respondent and they have also awarded with the  contractors for supply of manpower.  The contrqactors who have been awarded the works, have been execuitng their works with their own work force.  While the matter stood thus, the then State Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.41 dt.23-9-1996 under Ex.M2 prohibiting the engagment of congtract labour in 33 categories of employment in the then APSEB power Generating Units which are as follows ..............................   The then APSEB issued B.P.Ms.No.37 dt.18-5-1997 under Ex.M3 specifyiign that the contract labour working against 33 abolished categories in various generating stations of respondent shall be considered for appointment by selection against new posts in each of the generating stations being sanctioned seperately.  The then Government sanctioned 118 Jr.  Plant  Attendants and 1060 Mazdoor posts in KTPS, Paloncha vide proceedings dt.13-3-1988 for absorption of contract labour engaged in the prohibited categories.  Hence for the purpose of considerign the contract labour for absorption into regular vacancies,  a  Selection Committee was constituted including (1) Director Personnel, (2) Chief Engineer from Generating Stations/zone (3) Dy. Secretary (Personnel) (4) Director Industrial Relations (Member Convenor ) as per Ex.M3 B.P.Ms.No.37 dt.18-5-1997.  Therefter the erstwhile  APSEB issued B.P.Ms.No.260 dt.19-12-1997 for absorption of contract labour agaisnt 33 abolished categories as employees of the Board.  Thereafter the B.P.Ms.No.272  dt.31-12-1997 was issued specifying the guidelines for absorption of contract labours workign agaisnt the 33 abolished categories.  Further it is made clear that the contract labour shall be absorbed agaisnt the posts whcih are being sanctioned seperately.  Further interms of B.P.Ms.No.37 dt.18-5-1997 under Ex.M3 R/w.B.P.Ms.No.272 dt.31-12-1997 under Ex.M4 mean while the APSEB sanctioned 118 Jr. Plant Attendants and 1060 Mazdoor posts in KTSP, Paloncha to be filled up by the contract labour engaged in prohibited categories.  Further it is clear that in order to substintiate their claims out of 48 petitioenrs/workmen they have got examined themselves as WW1 to WW17 and the reamianing petitioenrs authorised the said witnesses to depose on their behalf also.  The evidence of all tghe witnesses have followed in the same lines statingthat the Chief Enginer, KTPS woriking under the control of respondent issued interview call letters in view of G.O.Ms.No. 41 dt.23-9-1996, B.P.Ms.No.37 dt.18-5-1997 and B.P.Ms.No.272 dt.31-12-1997 for all contract labour forconducting the interviews for absorption of contract labour in their establsihemnt as Jr.Plant Attendants and Mazdoor and in terms of the above B.P.Ms.no.s issued by the Board.  In pursuance of the above inerview call letters of the petitioenrs/workmen were interviewed by the Board in the year 1998.  As per the interview call letters issued to the contract labours asking them to produce the docuemgtns for support of their case particulars, accordingly the contract labour havesubmitted all theavailanle docuemtns and also particulars to the Board in addition to that the respondnet also collectedgthe attendnace regisgters frommthe contractos and putting all gthe docuemtns tgogether, the officials of the respondent Board have prepared Bonafide Certificates of the contract labour.