IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16864 of 2008 Between: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office, at # 7-1-27, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 016, and one of its Manufacturing Plants (CTO-VI) at I.D.A., Pydibhimavaram Village, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District-532 406, rep by its Senior Manager-HR, Mr. Veera Babu Kandukuri. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court Visakhapatnam. 2 Ms. Pathivada Saraswathi, D/o. Sri Guru Naidu, C/o. CITU Office, Abudalavalasa, Srikakulam District. 3 M/s Sri Venkateswara Manpaower, Placements and Consultancy, HIG. 22-5-2, Green Villa Apartment Beside Port Stadium, Visakhapatnam - 530013. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.R.SRIDHARAN Counsel for Respondent No.2:MR. V.SUDHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of prohibition to restrain respondent No.1 from proceeding with I.D.No.52 of 2007. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. The writ petition is filed on the premise that respondent No.2 being a contract labourer, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to entertain the industrial dispute purportedly raised by her under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After arguing the case at length, Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has no objection if respondent No.1 decides the issue regarding the status of respondent No.2, namely, whether she was the workman of the petitioner or a contract labourer engaged by respondent No.3. Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 says that his client has no objection for respondent No.1 to decide this question as a preliminary issue. In view of these submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the writ petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the question raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the dispute before respondent No.1 with the direction to respondent No.1 to decide the above-mentioned question as a preliminary issue after allowing both the parties to adduce their respective evidence. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. Depending upon the outcome of the finding of respondent No.1 on the above said preliminary issue, he shall decide on the further course of action with respect to the industrial dispute. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.21906 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st APRIL, 2009. kvni