HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.609 of 2004 ORDER: Petitioner was engaged as Contract Labour by two agencies, by name, M/s. Hardeep Electricals and Ashwini Refrigeration and Electricals to work in the Begumpet Airport, maintained by the Airport Authority of India, between 1992 and 1998. The petitioner and 18 others have approached this Court by filing W.P. Nos.17308 and 24704 of 1998, claiming that they deserve to be treated as employees of the Airport Authority. The writ petitions were allowed and directions in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation and Another v. United Labour Union and Others[1] were given. The respondents herein filed Writ Appeal No.865 of 2000 against the order in W.P. No.17308 of 1998. By that time, the Supreme Court rendered judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited And Another v. National Union Waterfront Workers And Others[2]. The judgment in the writ petition was modified and it was left open to the petitioner herein and others to work out their remedies in accordance with law. 2. Petitioner and 16 others have filed I.D. Nos.166 to 182 of 2002 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad, under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The 1st respondent filed I.A. No.23 of 2002 raising an objection as to the maintainability of the I.D. The objection was sustained and the I.A. was allowed through order dated 15-07- 2003. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. Sri M.Surender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Labour Court misread and misinterpreted the judgment of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. N. Satyanarayana and Others[3] and took the view that the I.D. is not maintainable. He contends that the learned single Judge of this Court declared that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons are the direct employees of the respondents and there was no basis for treating them as contract labours. He submits that the facts in the ONGC’s case (supra 3) are substantially different from those in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner, in categorical terms, stated that he is a contract labour under different agencies and it is not open to him to turn around and say that he is the direct employee of the respondents. He further submits that the I.D. under Section 2 A (2) of the Act can be filed only when there is no dispute as to the relationship of employer and employee and in the instant case, the petitioner was never the employee of the respondents. 5. The Petitioner, no doubt, approached this Court by filing W.P. No.17308 of 1998 and that a direction was issued to the effect that he be treated as a direct employee of the respondents and his services be regularized. That, however, was on the basis of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Authority’s case (Supra 1). After the said writ petition came to be disposed of, the Supreme Court rendered its judgment in Steel Authority of India’s case (Supra 2) and totally a different view was taken. That was followed by a Division Bench in the Writ appeal filed against the judgment in W.P. No.17308 of 1998. Therefore, the finding given or observation made by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.17308 of 1998, virtually stood set aside. 6. In the limited context of examining whether an I.D. under Section 2 A (2) of the Act could have been maintained by the petitioner, one of the important requirements is that there should not be any dispute that he was the employee of the respondents. Not only there is a controversy about it, but in the I.D. itself, the petitioner stated that he was engaged as a contract labour. He has furnished the particulars year after year. 7. In the teeth of that, it is difficult to hold that he can raise an industrial dispute straightaway under Section 2 A (2) of the Act. The Labour Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 11, 2010. KTL [1] 1997(9) SCC 377 [2] 2001(7) SCC 1 [3] 2003 (3) ALD 711