Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. This appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.33167 of 1997, which was disposed of along with W.P. Nos.33139 of 1997 and batch dated 10.10.2007. W.P. No.33139 of 1997 and batch was filed by the workmen aggrieved by the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, in separate I.Ds. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 33167 of 1997 which was filed questioning the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in I.D. No.59 of 1996 dated 26.06.1997.

2. The petitioner, along with others, had hitherto invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking regularisation of his services. On the ground that they had an alternate remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act), the petitioners were relegated to avail the remedy under the Act. Thereafter the Union, representing the petitioners, raised an Industrial Dispute. On the Central Government referring the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, the awards in I.D. Nos.46 of 1996 and batch dated 26.06.1997 were passed.

3. The dispute, referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.59 of 1996, was whether the person, who claimed to be a workman was the employee of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) at the Modern Rice Mill, Sathenapalli, Guntur District during the period of six years from 1975-81; If so, whether the action of the management of the FCI, Regional Office, Hyderabad, in terminating his services in 1981, and denying him the benefit of regularisation of his services, in accordance with the Circulars dated 06.05.1987 and dated 24.08.1992, was legal and justified?; and, if not, what relief was the workman entitled to?

4. It was contended by the petitioner, before the Industrial Tribunal, that he was originally engaged in 1974 by a contractor, by name Sri D.V. Subba Rao, who was awarded the contract by the FCI at the Modern Rice Mill; the contractor absconded in the year 1975; thereafter, officers of the FCI had engaged the services of the petitioner, as a labourer, directly; the FCI had selected one Sri Subbayya as the Mutta Maistry to distribute wages to 25 workmen; he used to collect wages in a lumpsum from the management, and distribute it among the workers; Sri Subbayya was the contractor and the petitioner a contract labourer; the FCI had collected his provident fund contribution, and had deposited the same with the provident fund authorities; the contract labour system was again introduced by the FCI in 1981, and the petitioner was made to work as a contract labourer, which was an unfair labour practice; the FCI had issued Circular dated 06.05.1987 for regularisation of the services of Casual employees who had put in three months of service; the case of the petitioner, along with others, was recommended by the District Manager; the FCI had issued another Circular dated 24.08.1992 calling for, among others, the particulars of casual labourers; and as the FCI had denied him, and other workmen, the benefit of regularisation, they had raised the Industrial dispute.

5. In their counter, filed in reply to the claim statement filed on behalf of the petitioner, FCI admitted that, after Sri D.V. Subba Rao absconded from 15.07.1975, the work of handling and transporting food grains was entrusted to Sri Subbayya, Mutta Maistry, on a contract basis on the same terms and conditions; Sri Subbayya, the contractor though called a Mutta Maistry, was receiving money till 1981, and had paid wages to the labourers engaged by him; as the Provident Fund Commissioner demanded payment, the FCI had paid the provident fund contributions, and had deducted the amount from the bills of the contractor; and this did not create any relationship of master and servant.

6. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself