IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14546 of 1999 Between: Md. Farooq S/o Md. Ibrahim R/o Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad 2 The Controller of Stores, Zonal Stores (R), A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ after calling the records from the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.3/98 and quash the award in I.D. No. 3/98 dated 28/12/98 and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. K. MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14546 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award, dated 28.12.1998, made in I.D.No.3 of 1998 on the file of the 1st respondent – Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, whereunder the petition filed under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) was dismissed. Petitioner is the workman and 2nd respondent is the management. According to the petitioner, he was engaged as casual labour by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, to work in the Stores Department at Musheerabad, with effect from 03.11.1989, on daily wage basis. It is his grievance that though he had put in more than 240 days of service, his services were not regularized and, in fact, he was disengaged from service. Therefore, he raised a dispute in I.D.No.3 of 1998, under Section 2-A (2) of the Act, before the 1st respondent - Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Respondent-management resisted the petition by filing a counter. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself as W.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.W1 to W17. On behalf of the respondent-management, no witnesses were examined, however documents Exs.M1 to M3 were marked. After detailed consideration of the entire evidence placed before it, the Labour Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, by way of common award dated 28.12.1998, along with three other similar petitions, holding that the petitioner can only be treated as contract labour engaged for specific purpose and for specific period and after the work ceased, he will not have any work, and, hence, his disengagement was justified and he cannot claim regularization of his services. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as contract labour to work in the Stores Department of the Corporation and he was attending to the duties of loading and unloading of tyres and shifting of material from one yard to another yard. The Labour Court has rightly noticed the fact that the petitioner was engaged as contract labour only, but not as casual labour and, thus, held that there was no master and servant relationship and he cannot claim regularization of his services. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the Labour Court and of the opinion that no interference by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is warranted. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 2nd May, 2008. IBL To 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad 2 The Controller of Stores, Zonal Stores (R), A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad 3 Two CD Copies.