AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule nisi, Mr. R Ramanujam, learned Standing Counsel for APSE Board, took notice for the respondents. The facts and the question of law which do arise for consideration and resolution are the same in both these writ petitions. Hence, they were clubbed and heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
Admittedly the petitioners in both the writ petitions entered the services of the respondent-Board on contract basis subsequent on 23-9-1996. it is also an admitted position that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which is an appropriate Government under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ''the Act'') issued notification u/s 10 of the Act abolishing contract labour in the APSE Board as regards the 33 categories of employment. It is also an admitted position that ali the petitioners herein are engaged on contract basis in the aforementioned prohibited 33 categories of employment.
In these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in B.P. (P&G Per.) Ms.No.272 dated 31-21-1997 with reference to clause 4(iii) as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners for absorption in their respective cadres, in which they have been working on contract basis, in accordance with the proceedings in B.P. (P&G Per) Ms.No.37 dated 18-5-1997, with all consequential benefits.
The effect of the notification issued by the appropriate Government u/s 10 of the Act is that the contract labour in the prohibited 33 categories of employment stood abolished and they became the employees of the Board. To implement the legal consequences flowing from the abolition of the contract labour, the Management of the Board has issued B.P. (P&G Per.) Ms.No.37 dated 18-5-1997. In B.P. (P&G Per.) 272 dated 31-12-1997. Under clause (iii) of para 4 it is directed that the contract labour, who seeks absorption of his services on regular basis in terms of B, P. (P&G Per.) Ms.No.37 dated 18-5-1997 should have been on rolls as on 23-9-1996 i.e., the date on which the prohibition of employment of contract labour in respect of 33 categories of employment was imposed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23-9-1996. Admittedly, none of the petitioners herein was working as contract labour on the date of issuance of GO.Ms.N6.41- Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner have acquired any vested right to be considered for absorption of their services on regular basis in terms of B.P. (P&G Per) Ms.No.37 dated 18-5-1997. Only those contract labour who were on rolls as on the appointed date, i.e., 23-9-1996, are entitled to be absorbed in terms of B.P. (P&G, Per) Ms.No.37 as alegal consequence flowing from G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23-9-1996, Therefore, no writ will lie against the Board commanding them to absorb the services of the Writ petitioners in terms of B.P. (P&G. Per.) Ms.No.37 dated 18-5-1997.
The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.