THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.22072 of 2001 ORDER : The petitioner, a casual conductor, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the Award in I.D.No.51 of 1999, dated 17-10-2000 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur, to the extent he has been denied backwages and continuity of service. The Zonal Enforcement Squad, Kavali conducted a check when the petitioner was conducting the bus operating on the route Giddalur to Porumamilla. On the basis of the check, a charge-sheet was issued alleging that the petitioner failed to punch and account the ticket of Rs.2.50 ps. denomination to a passenger; that he caused cancellation of single trips intentionally; that he attended the Depot on 22-10-1998 in a drunken state and created a bad scene and violated the ‘issue and start’ rule. After the petitioner submitted explanation, an enquiry was conducted in which he was found to be guilty on all the charges. Basing on the said enquiry report, the 1st Respondent issued a show cause notice on 16-12-1998 seeking explanation as to why the petitioner should not be disengaged. The petitioner submitted explanation thereto and on considering the same, proceedings dated 22-12-1998 were issued disengaging him from service. An appeal and Revision preferred by the petitioner to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Ongole and the Regional Manager, Ongole were dismissed by orders dated 12-02-1999 and 22-12- 1999 respectively, thereby confirming the orders dated 22-12-1998. The petitioner therefore raised a dispute before the Labour Court in I.D.No.51 of 1999 seeking reinstatement with backwages and all other attendant benefits. The said I.D. was partly allowed to the extent of directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service. His request for backwages and continuity of service was rejected. That is how this Writ Petition is filed for the aforesaid relief. Heard Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation. Indisputably, the petitioner was a casual employee. The nature of employment being casual, a casual employee could only be engaged whenever the work is available and not on a continuous basis. The fact that the petitioner was a casual employee was not in dispute either during the enquiries conducted by the respondents or in the I.D before the Labour Court. In the circumstances, the denial of continuity of service and backwages by the Court cannot be said to be incorrect. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the services of the petitioner were regularised by proceedings dated 02-11- 1996 with effect from 01-09-1996, therefore, the finding that the petitioner was in casual employment is not correct. The respondents, however, dispute the said fact stating that the petitioner was not regularised as he had not completed 240 days of service. As mentioned above, the petitioner did not dispute his status as a casual labour before the Court nor had he drew the attention of the Court to his regularization. Further, in view of the categorical statement of the respondents that petitioner’s services were not regularised and in the absence of any plea and evidence adduced by the petitioner in the Court, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s services were regularised. Therefore, on this count also the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 31st January, 2011. skmr THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.27849 of 2008