IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5115 of 2008 Between: Md.Rufia, W/o.Sardar, R/o.House besides Church Compound, Suryapet,Nalgonda Dist., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport, Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director, Office at RTC Bhavan,Museerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Suryapet Division, Suryapet. 3 Dept Manager, APSRTC, Suryapet Division, Suryapet. 4 The Asst Labour Inspector, Labour Department Govt of A.P., Suryapet, .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or any appropriate writ or writs or direction/s more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5115 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have worked as a casual labour in the Suryapet Bus Depot, for a period of five years, for undertaking sweeping and cleaning works, in different spells, under different contractors. She made a representation, dated 25.07.2005, to the 3rd respondent, Depot Manager, to regularize her Provident Fund Account. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the leaned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent No.4 A perusal of the representation, dated 25.07.2005, made by the petitioner discloses that her grievance is about the regularization of Provident Fund Account. Admittedly, she was engaged by different labour contractors, for different spells of time. There did not exist any relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, the question of regularizing her services does not arise. So far as the claim of the petitioner as regards the regularization of Provident Fund Account is concerned, she has to work out her remedies with the concerned labour contractors as well as the Provident Fund Organization. None of them are parties to this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to make necessary representations to the labour contractors, who have engaged her services, or the competent authority under the Provident Funds Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 11.03.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5115 of 2008 Date: 11.03.2008 JSU