HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8262 OF 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, S. Jilani Basha, contending that he passed I.T.I. (Diesel Mechanic) in 1988 and he worked in Patel Engineering Company Limited, which was a contractor of the Srisailam Project in respect of the A.P. Generation Corporation (for short “APGENCO”) and thus he worked as contract labourer under the above Contractor from 30-12-1990 to 31-07-1992 i.e., for a period of one year and seven months. Thereafter, he worked for repairing the vehicles of APGENCO and the Assistant Divisional Engineer, E.H.T. Lines/APSEB, Srisailam Project issued experience certificate dated 17-07-1998. He knows driving and he has driving licence also. The APGENCO employed him for operation and maintenance of power generation project under Srisailam Left Bank Hydro Electric Scheme and he shall be preferred for appointment. 2. Respondents filed a counter affidavit contending that petitioner was not engaged by APGENCO for any purpose. He might have been engaged by the contractors executing various works and as the construction work was almost completed, labourers were retrenched and that the APGENCO was having required number of workmen. Petitioner cannot compare himself with the labourers, whose services were regularised with effect from 01-11-2000, as there was no direct master and servant relationship between them. However, certain workmen engaged by the APGENCO as contract labourers to attend to the works not covered by major contract agreements have been regularised. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he worked firstly under the contractor of the APGENCO and thereafter directly with the APGENCO for repairing its vehicles. But, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to bring to the notice of this Court any provision of law, as per which, the workmen, who worked with the contractor or the APGENCO directly, are automatically entitled to being employed in APGENCO. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which perhaps is not applicable in all the cases and in a case like this. 5. On the other hand, contention of the learned counsel appearing for APGENCO is that absolutely there is no material to show that petitioner has earlier worked with any contractor that has done work for the APGENCO and subsequently he worked as diesel mechanic in APGENCO from 1992 to 1998. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on an experience certificate dated 17-07-1998 allegedly issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, E.H.T. Lines/APSEB, Srisailam Project, which shows that petitioner has worked from February 1992 to June 1998 i.e., for six long years. But, the writ petition itself does not say that petitioner has worked for so many years as shown in the alleged experience certificate. In case, petitioner has really worked for such a long period, perhaps he might have been absorbed. 7. However, the question is whether the petitioner has really worked under the contractor that has worked for the APGENCO and subsequently whether he worked directly in APGENCO as a diesel mechanic is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in this writ petition. Petitioner ought to have approached the Industrial Tribunal for the above relief. 8. Considering the circumstances, I see no merit to entertain this writ petition, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. However, dismissal of this writ petition would not preclude the petitioner from approaching the competent authority, if he so desires. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 3, 2010. PV