THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 7274 of 2006 O r d e r: The petitioners, who are two in number, have filed this writ petition, seeking a direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent-APSRTC in not regularizing their services as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent-APSRTC to regularize their services from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 08.01.1985 and 24.11.1995 respectively, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. The 1st petitioner claims that at the time of establishment of Kurnool Bus Station in the year 1985, he was appointed as Sweeper to work for the respondent-APSRTC, through a Contractor, and that he worked under his control for two years from 1985 to 1986. From 1987 to 1988, he was allotted to work at the residence of the Depot Manager, and after his transfer, he was allotted to work at the residence of the Divisional Manager, where he worked from 1991 to 1993, and from 1994, he has been allotted to Kurnool-II Depot. He claims that his musters were maintained by the respondent, and that during 1998, he was even allotted official work, and was issued Identity Card and Bus Pass for himself and his family members, and that even he was admitted to the provident fund. While the 2nd petitioner claims that he has been appointed as Guest House Boy as a contract workman under the control of Assistant Traffic Manager, Kurnool Bus Station, and that he has been working with the respondent-APSRTC since April, 1995. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they made several representations, including on 21.03.2003 and 04.04.2004, requesting the respondent-APSRTC to absorb them in service as regular employees and pay them the regular scales, no action thereon had been taken. The petitioners further state that a similarly placed person by name Sri. S. Maddiletti, who worked as Water Boy with the respondent, assailed the action of the respondent-APSRTC in terminating his services orally by filing writ petition in W.P. No. 28408 of 1997, and in pursuance of the directions dated 15.12.1999 made by this Court in the said writ petition, his services were regularized by the respondent-APSRTC. The petitioners state that since the respondent- APSRTC is their employer, and since they have been working with the respondent-APSRTC for nearly 20 years, they are entitled to regularization of their services, and the action of the respondent- APSRTC in not regularizing their services, is illegal and arbitrary. The Law Officer, APSRTC, Mushirabad, Hyderabad, filed counter on behalf of the respondent-APSRTC. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-APSRTC reiterating the counter averments contended that the petitioners are not their employees, but are the employees of the Contractor. He submitted that the terms and conditions of the contract are very clear, that it is the responsibility of the Contractor to get the works done through his employees. There is no nexus between the petitioners and the respondent-APSRTC with regard to appointment, payment of salary etc. There is neither contractual relationship nor relationship of “master and servant” between the petitioners and the respondent-APSRTC. In support of his argument that any appointment made by the respondent-APSRTC should be in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Regulations, placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in National Fertilizers Limited v. Somvir Singh[1]. He further contended that admission of the petitioner as member to the provident fund scheme is by the Contractor, and they were admitted with a view to ensure that the Contractor does not escape from the statutory liability, and such admission of the petitioners to provident fund, does not by itself create any relationship of “master and servants” between the respondent-APSRTC and the petitioners. He further contended that the respondent-APSRTC identified certain works, which do not require regular appointment, and has taken a policy decision to get the works done through outsourcing, and the respondent-APSRTC in line with such policy decision, had outsourced the nature of the works performed by the petitioners through Contractor, with a view to reduce personnel cost, having regard to the fact that the respondent-APSRTC is suffering huge losses. He further submitted that disputed questions of facts and law are involved in the writ petition, and in support of his argument that disputed questions of facts and law cannot be gone into in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in APSRTC v. G. Srinivas Reddi[2]. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-APSRTC. The questions, namely whether the petitioners were engaged as casual labour through a contractor for performing the works of the respondent-APSRTC, whether in course of time, they have become the employees of the respondent-APSRTC, whether the engagement and employment of the petitioners through contractor, was a mere camouflage and a smokescreen to avoid regular employment to the petitioners, and whether there is any relationship of “employee and employer” between the petitioners and the respondent-APSRTC, are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for adjudication of such questions requires adducing of evidence by the parties, and as such, the remedy of the petitioners, is to approach the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since disputed questions of fact are involved, and having regard to the fact the petitioner had spent lot of time in fighting the litigation, as no purpose would be served if the petitioners are directed to request the Government to refer the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Tribunal, both the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Zonal Manager, FCI v. D. Venkata Rao[3], wherein the workmen were directed to approach the Labour Court without their making any request to the Government for referring the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: In view of the agreed stand taken by both the counsel, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioners without requesting the Government to refer the dispute raised by them under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are at liberty to approach the Labour Court directly and raise industrial dispute. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25th January, 2008. KSR [1] 2006 (6) SCALE 101 [2] (2006) 3 SCC 674 [3] 1997 (2) ALD 225 (DB)