THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.3910, 21788 and 21938 of 2003 Dated:14.10.2011 Between: D.Santosh Kumar and others .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.3910, 21788 and 21938 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in these three matters filed applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a direction to regularize their services in suitable posts. The learned Tribunal relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court, to which one of us (Justice V.V.S.Rao) is a member, in Superintending Engineer, HCC.L., CPWD, Hyderabad v Tekmalla Raj Sekhar[1] and dismissed the original applications giving liberty to the petitioners to seek redressal before the appropriate forum. The petitioners are contract employees. They allegedly worked in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for more than a decade under various contractors as Computer Operators, Technical Assistants, Surveyors and Typists. Statedly, they possess technical qualifications and come within the ambit and purview of the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.12.1994. As per the scheme unveiled in the said G.O., for regularization of NMR/ Daily Wage employees/Consolidated employees, who have completed five years as on 25.11.1993, such persons have to be regularized in suitable posts, subject to the condition that all of them shall fulfill the qualifications and availability of the vacancies in the respective categories. It is contended before this Court that all the petitioners are highly qualified persons and in the absence of any express prohibition in G.O.Ms.No.212, they ought to be regularized according to the scheme of regularization. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission. As held by the Division Bench in T.Raja Sekhar, contract labour regulated by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, have to approach jurisdictional Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal. This is based on the principle that in so far as the contract labour is concerned, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the principal employer and contract labour. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Division Bench. It was held therein that the plea that the petitioners are workmen has to be raised under the provisions of the Industrial Tribunals Act and not by filing a petition or application under the Administrative Tribunals Act. We do not find any strong reason to take a different view. The Tribunal has correctly applied the law and the impugned orders do not warrant interference. We may observe that if the work entrusted to the contractors is continued and is of perennial nature the respondent–Corporation may ensure that all the petitioners are employed by the contractors. Except making such an observation, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We give liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy under the Industrial Law. The Writ Petitions, with the above observations, are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ____________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 14.10.2011 KH [1] 2001 (6) ALT 39 : 2001 (6) ALD 64