HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.NO. 21000 OF 2001 DATED : 25-11-2010 Between: A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad …Petitioner And T.Kumar & another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.NO. 21000 OF 2001 O R D E R: A.P.S.R.T.C. seeks Writ of Certiorari in respect of Award dated 17-01-2001 passed by the Labour Court –II, Hyderabad, in I.D. No. 105 of 1997 directing the writ petitioner to reinstate the 1st respondent as contract sweeper afresh. No back wages nor continuity of service was ordered by the lower Court. 2. Alleging that his services were illegally terminated by the Corporation, the 1st respondent approached the Labour Court for relief. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 1st respondent was never a contractual employee of the petitioner-corporation and that a contract was given in favour of one Bhooma Goud for sweeping the Depot and cleaning buses in the Depot and that the said Bhooma Gloud engaged 8 labourers including the 1st respondent herein and that as the depot area is a prohibited area, the corporation issued identity card to the 1st respondent and that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Even though, there are no order of appointment in favour of the 1st respondent issued by the petitioner and termination proceeding terminating the 1st respondent’s service, on complaint by the 1st respondent and on production of Ex.W1 – identity card by him, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent was engaged by the corporation as a sweeper. 3. It is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that subsequent to filing of this writ petition, the corporation had reinstated the 1st respondent as a contract sweeper, as there was no stay granted by this Court. The corporation did not file any record before the Labour Court to show that it was Bhooma Goud, who engaged the services of the 1st respondent. Simply because, there was some contract or understanding between the corporation and Bhooma Goud, it would not follow that the said Bhooma Goud engaged the 1st respondent as a labourer under him for doing work covered by the said contract. In the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the Labour Court rightly held that the 1st respondent was engaged by the corporation previously and without any reason and without any piece of paper, his services were stopped by the corporation. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. 4. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt.25-11-2010 Mjl/*