THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 15310 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioners initially approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, stating that they have not been paid the wages by the respondents, from 1.1.2003 to 30.11.2005. He is said to have advised them to file an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “the Act”), before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The petitioners, accordingly, filed M.P.No.2 of 2006, under Section 33-C (2), claiming wages for the period, referred to above. Respondents filed a counter affidavit, raising objection to the maintainability of the M.P. It was pleaded that the petitioners were, if at all, engaged by the Labour Contractor, who was awarded the contract for a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. It is also alleged that the A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad is a necessary party, and the 2nd respondent has no say in the matter, at all. Through its order, dated 3.12.2007, the Labour Court dismissed the M.P. Hence, the writ petition. Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that except taking a vague and uncertain plea in the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent did not furnish the particulars of the Labour Contractor. He contends that the petitioners are paid their remuneration directly, by the 2nd respondent, for certain period, and the Labour Court ought to have allowed the M.P. An application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, can be maintained, only when there is no dispute as to the existence of the relationship of employer and employee, between the parties, or where it has been adjudicated in the earlier round of proceedings. Such is not the case here. The 2nd respondent, who alone was impleaded in the M.P, took a categorical stand that the petitioners were not engaged by them and that the work for the corresponding period, was entrusted to a labour contractor. No efforts were made by the petitioner, either to impleade the Labour Contractor, or to belie the contention of the 2nd respondent herein. Though it is not permissible in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, to decide for the first time, such questions, there was not even an effort by the petitioners, to establish their claim. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition does not preclude the petitioners to work out their remedies, if any, against the proper party, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 17th July 2008 PAN