Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.  9793/2010

GENERAL MANAGER, APGENCO   APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

P. RAM BABU & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

The  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  referred  the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal:-

“Whether  the  petitioners  are working  as  contract  labourers   in the  prohibited  categories  of employment  as  per  G.O.Ms.  No.41, dated 23.9.1996, followed by B.P.Ms. No.37  dated  18.05.1997  and  whether they are entitled for absorption as per the scheme framed by the Board under B.P. No.272, dated 31.12.1997 for  absorption  of  contract  labour working in prohibited categories of employment?”

2. The  said  Industrial  Dispute  No.105/2002  was adjudicated  by  the  Tribunal  and  after  elaborately discussing the evidence, on 09.09.2005, the Tribunal passed an Award holding that the respondent-workmen have  been  working  in  the  prohibited  categories  of employment and that in terms of the guidelines framed by the appellant they are entitled for absorption. The Award was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.9057 of 2006. 3. Though,  it  was  a  limited  jurisdiction,  the learned Single Judge in the High Court elaborately

1

Page 2

considered the evidence before the Tribunal and held that  the  workmen  were  entitled  for  absorption  in terms of Government order dated 23.9.1996. Aggrieved the appellant is before this Court. 4. It  was  strenuously  contended  that  even  if  the Committee recommended the absorption, the appellant was still entitled to look into the eligibility and the mere recommendation will not entitle the workmen for automatic absorption.  We have no quarrel with the proposition, but the question is, whether there was a recommendation and why the recommendation was not  considered.   Before  the  Tribunal,  despite  the couple of opportunities given, the recommendation was not  produced  and  the  same  was  withheld  from  the Tribunal.  Despite that, the Tribunal considered the evidence available elaborately and came to a specific finding that the workmen were sent on deputation on the cut off date by the Management only to deny the benefit of absorption. 5. Thus, in our view, the Division Bench has rightly held  that  “the  finding  recorded  by  the  learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court which has been approved  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  that  the respondents  were  sent  on  deputation  on  23.09.1996 with a view to scuttle their claim for absorption is a  pure  finding  of  fact.   The  same  is  based  on  a comprehensive  appreciation  of  evidence  produced  by the parties.” 6. We do not find any perversity in the finding. The appeal is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. Since  the  appeal  has  been  dismissed,  it  goes without saying that the appellant will take the steps to implement the Award in its true spirit, without any further delay.

2

Page 3

8. Pending  application(s),  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 9. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [A.M. KHANWILKAR]  

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 31, 2017.

3