IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18684 of 1999 Between: Smt. S.Balamani W.o Venkatiah, R/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Presiding Officer Addl.Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour, Court, Hyderabad. 2 The Management of M/s Ashok Leyland I.D.A., Uppal, Hyderabad. 3 Mr. J.Obaiah, H.No.10-115/3, Ramulamma Nilaym Vinayaka Nagar, Balanagar Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ particularly one in the Nature of Writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate Writ calling for for thr records in I.D.NO.68/97 on the file of the 1st Respondent herein quash the award and consequently set aside the award passed by the Labour Court while directing the Respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other benefits and pass such further or order orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed against the award, dated 26th December 1998, passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.68 of 1997. 2. The petitioner herein was the applicant in an application filed before the Tribunal, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was his case before the Tribunal that he was employed by the 2nd respondent- Company, on 3rd August 1993, as a Helper and worked for four years. It was also his case that though he has completed more than 240 days of service in every year, the 2nd respondent-Company has retrenched his services without following the provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act. The said application was resisted by the 2nd respondent-Company, disputing the petitioner’s employment itself in the Company. It was the case of the 2nd respondent-Company that the petitioner appears to have been engaged by the canteen contractor, and as much as he was not appointed by the Company, there was no occasion to retrench his services. 3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as WW-1 and his representation, dated 07.12.1996, was marked as Ex.W-1 on his behalf. On behalf of the management, MW-1 was examined and Exs.M-1 to M-11 documents were marked. 4. The Tribunal below, having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that there is no evidence to prove the appointment of petitioner by the 2nd respondent-Company, except his own evidence. In that context, holding that there is no record to show the relationship of employer and employee between the 2nd respondent-Company and the petitioner, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner. 5. In this case, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was employed by the 2nd respondent-Company, but inspite of the same, the Tribunal has misread the evidence while recording its findings. 6. With reference to the said submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner, it is to be seen that in the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent-Company has denied the employment of petitioner in their Company, and the deposition of MW-1 is also to the same effect. Further, the documentary evidence in Exs.M-1, M-3, M-8 and M-9 show that during the relevant period, the canteen was given on contract to one Sri J.Obaiah, who is figured as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. The license obtained by the said contractor under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is also filed before the Tribunal. 7. In the instant case, except the oral evidence of petitioner, there is no other material on record to prove the direct relationship of employer and employee between the 2nd respondent-Company and the petitioner. As there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was employed by the 2nd respondent-Company, the question of his illegal retrenchment, will not arise. Having perused the impugned award, this Court is also of the view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are in conformity with the oral and documentary evidence on record. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th March 2009. ajr