GEN.MANAGER,APGENCO Vs. P.RAM BABU & ORS

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 9793 of 2010, Judgment Date: Jan 31, 2017

                                                              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 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.
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.