THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25264 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed I.D.No.96 of 2008 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, against the 2nd respondent, stating that he was engaged as a Contract Labour to work in the 3rd respondent-organization and was removed from service without any notice and in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’). During the pendency of the I.A., he filed two applications viz., I.A.Nos.62 of 2011 with a prayer to reopen the I.D. and I.A.No.63 of 2011 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit him to amend the prayer in the I.D., to claim the relief against the 3rd respondent also. The Tribunal dismissed the applications through a common order, dated 05.03.2011. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I.A.No.62 of 2011 is almost a procedural requirement and the actual consideration is in I.A.No.63 of 2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner raised the industrial dispute, feeling aggrieved by the alleged removal from service by the 2nd respondent. He clearly stated that he was engaged as a contract labour to work in the 3rd respondent-organisation. The relief under Section 2A(2) of the Act was naturally to be against the 2nd respondent, the Agency, which is said to have employed and engaged the petitioner. It may be true that where an individual is engaged as contract labour, he can seek a declaration to the effect that the device of engaging contract labour was resorted to, as a ruse and the nature of duties of the post does not permit of such a course. However, any relief in this direction can be claimed only by seeking reference under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act by invoking the provisions of Section 2(k) of the Act. In the instant case also, in case, the petitioner is reinstated into service, he can certainly make efforts to seek a reference for adjudication of his status vis-à-vis the principal employer. As the things stand now, there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the context of reinstatement. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act, in case he is successful in the I.D. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 08.09.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25264 of 2011 Date: 08.09.2011 JSU