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.
