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.