THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.381 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as a Contract Labour by the se respondent in the year 1987. It is stated that the petitioner met wi accident in the course of employment on 31.01.1994 and some amou compensation was also paid. Stating that his services were terminated, the petitioner filed I.D.No.103 of 2000 before the Indu Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. The ID was opposed by respo Nos.2 and 3. It was pleaded that the petitioner was engaged as a Co Labour by the Labour Contractor, the fourth respondent herein, and there did not exist any relationship of employer and employee. It is stated that discontinuance of engagement of a Contract Labour doe amount to retrenchment and the remedies, if any, are to be worke against the Labour Contractor. The Labour Court dismissed the ID th the award, dated 17.07.2003. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, an Nageswara Sree, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner does not dispute that he was engaged as a Co Labour by the fourth respondent and in turn was entrusted with the dut the second respondent-organization. The principal employer as de under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 wou doubt owe certain obligations towards Labour Contractor, however would be in the context of payment of salaries or emoluments, as the may be. The relationship of actual employer and employee vis-à- Contract Labour would be mostly with the Labour Contractor. It is through the Labour Contractor that he would be required to work in organization or the other. There does not exist any direct relatio between a Contract Labour and a Principal Employer. If the Labour Contractor chooses not to send or supply any part individual to work in an organization, with which he has a Contract, it not bring about termination or retrenchment. As a matter of fac industrial establishments or the principal employer would be helpless, Labour Contractor does not send such employee. Therefore, the quest there being any retrenchment of the petitioner in the hands of the se respondent does not arise. The Labour Court has taken the right view matter and this Court is not inclined to take a different view. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no ord to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:23.09.2010 VGB