THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 2387 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against an Award made in I.D. No. 212 of 1992 dated 27.7.1999 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godhavarikhani, Karimnagar District, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act was rejected in toto. Petitioner is the workman. 2nd respondent is the management and 3rd respondent is the Contractor who supplied labour to 2nd respondent. According to petitioner, he was working in the Lightening and Maintenance Department of NTPC, Jyothi Nagar, Godavarikhani with effect from 10.10.1985. While so, on 13.9.1989, an accident occurred in the premises and the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and was bedridden for two years. Therefore, he claimed compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act by filing W.C. No. 79 of 1991 and he was paid Rs.20,210/- by 2nd respondent. After recovery from the illness that he suffered due to accident, he reported to duty on 30.4.1991. However, he was not permitted to join duty and his services were orally terminated on 30.4.1991. Hence, he filed the I.D. Originally, it appears the I.D. was filed against respondent No.2only. After counter was filed by respondent No.2, I.A. 97 of 1994 was filed for impleading respondent No.3 and the same was allowed on 6.1.1995. It was the case of 2nd respondent that the petitioner was never engaged by it directly. He was only a contract labourer supplied by respondent No.3, therefore, he is not the employee of respondent No.2. However, the other allegation, such as, he has been working from 10.10.1985 and an accident took place on 13.9.1989 and he was paid compensation of Rs.20,210/- was not denied. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the workman, he examined himself as WW1 and got marked Ex.W1. On behalf of respondent-management, MWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.M-1 to M3 were marked. After detailed consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not the employee of 2nd respondent-Corporation but he worked under respondent No.3-Contractor as a contract labourer and accordingly dismissed the I.D. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that it is 2nd respondent who employed the petitioner through 3rd respondent and 2nd respondent, in fact, paid compensation when accident occurred, as such, the oral termination dated 30.4.1991 is arbitrary and illegal and that the Labour Court has erroneously gave a finding that 2nd respondent is not the employer of the petitioner; that the petitioner is a contract labourer under 3rd respondent and there is no employer and employee relationship between 2nd respondent and the petitioner respectively. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the Award passed by the Labour Court and submitted that no grounds are made out calling for interference of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, into the Award passed by the Labour Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. After going through the entire evidence as well as the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner was not an employee of 2nd respondent. He was engaged through the Contractor i.e. respondent No.3 as contract labourer. May be, some accident occurred on 13.9.1989 and respondent No.2 was made liable to pay compensation in W.C. No. 71 of 1991 as a principal employer in view of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. However, there is no employer and employee relationship between 2nd respondent and petitioner, since the petitioner was not absorbed into service by 2nd respondent and the petitioner is governed by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed by him against respondent No.2 and accordingly dismissed the I.D. filed by the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error in dismissing the I.D. filed by the petitioner by Award dated 27.7.1999, calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 9-6-2010. MVB.