JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
Page 2976
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:
(a) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to instantly refer the dispute to the Industrial Adjudicator; and
(b) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus/ prohibition directing the respondent No. 2 to maintain status quo as regards the services of the petitioner workers till the industrial dispute is finally decided by the industrial adjudicator with specific direction to the respondent M/s Petronet LNG Limited not to substitute the services of the petitioners with other workmen even if they want to change the contractor; and
(c) in the alternative, the above interim protection as mentioned in prayer (b) be granted till the disposal of the proposed application for stay that the petitioners would file before the Industrial Tribunal after the dispute is referred to the Tribunal so that the reference is not made infructuous; and
(d)pass such other or further order or orders and/or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.
2. It is stated by the petitioners that petitioners were engaged by respondent No. 2 i.e M/s Petronet LNG Limited through respondent No. 3, a contractor. They were Ex-Servicemen engaged for different periods and all the claimants fell within the definition of Workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners were working under the direct control and supervision of M/s Petronet LNG Limited and contract given to respondent No. 3 was merely a sham transaction to camouflage true relationship of employer and employee between the management of M/s Petronet LNG Limited and the petitioners. The work performed by the petitioners was of permanent and perennial nature and all the requirements of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 were satisfied. The management, thus, ought not have engaged the petitioners through respondent No. 3 as the same amounts to unfair labour practice. Petitioners have made a representation before the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board on 17.4.2006 requesting the Board to abolish the contract labour system in the establishment of the respondent management. The management ought to have absorbed the claimant workers and regularised their services instead of exploiting the workmen. The petitioners made various representation to regularise them in the existing posts and have also given Page 2977 written representation dated 5.4.2005 to the management. When all the efforts of the claimant/workers to settle the dispute with the management failed they joined the union named APS and SSW Employees Union. The Union also served a demand notice on their behalf on the management dated 20.7.2005 requesting to regularise the services of the claimants and to give them wage parity. The union had also raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 27.7.2005 by filing its Statement of Claim. The claimant workers had in their meeting dated 16.1.2006 decided to leave the above named APS and SSW Employees Union and join Delhi Multi Storeyed Building Employees Congress. In the said meeting it was also resolved that if for any reason the petitioners would not get the support of any union they would raise an industrial dispute for the regularization of their services and for wage parity and parity in other facilities. The Delhi Multi Storeyed Congress union in its meeting 17.1.2006 resolved that the cause of the petitioners would be espoused by this union before the management and the labour authorities. It had, on the same date, issued a fresh demand notice on behalf of the petitioners inter-alia for the regularisation of their services and when no action was taken by management on the demand raised by the union, the petitioners along with their this union had on 10.2.2006 filed an amended Statement of Claim before the learned ALC, Central. Learned ALC had not passed an order on the petitioners’ application Under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act but verbally told the respondent management not to disturb the services of the petitioners so long the matter is pending before him and matter is fixed before ALC today itself i.e 11.08.2006. It is submitted that while the petitioners are awaiting the reference of their dispute to the appropriate Industrial Tribunal, the respondent M/s Petronet LNG Limited has threatened to terminate the services of the petitioners immediately after closure of the conciliation proceedings on 11.08.2006. The petitioners have no other forum from where the petitioners can get the interim protection except this Court, therefore, they approached the High Court and sought the relief as prayed. I consider that the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioners have not approached this Court for enforcement of any legal right. So long as the contact labour is not prohibited by appropriate government, respondent No. 2 has a right to engage respondent No. 3 for providing security services. Merely because petitioners consider that a notification under Section 10 C.L.R.A. was necessary, it can approach court and obtain an injunction against respondents No. 2 and 3 who have admittedly not violated any legal right of the petitioners. In Secretary of State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. 2006(4) Scale 197 Supreme Court held:
During the course of the arguments, various orders of courts either interim or final were brought to our notice. The purport of those orders more or less was the issue of directions for continuation or absorption without referring to the legal position obtaining. Learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka submitted that chaos has been created by such orders without reference to legal principles and it is time that this Court Page 2978 settled the law once for all so that in case the court finds that such orders should not be made, the courts, especially, the High Courts would be precluded from issuing such directions or passing such orders. The submission of learned Counsel for the respondents based on the various orders passed by the High Court or by the Government pursuant to the directions of Court also highlights the need for settling the law by this Court. The bypassing of the constitutional scheme cannot be perpetuated by the passing of orders without dealing with and deciding the validity of such orders on the touchstone of constitutionality. (para 13)
…When the court is approached for relief by way of a writ, the court has necessarily to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. Considered in the light of the very clear constitutional scheme, it cannot be said that the employees have been able toe establish a legal right they have never been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
3. I consider that writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into a jurisdiction of the nature of Order 39 C.P.C. Or Section 9 of Arbitration Act. Writ jurisdiction of High Court can only be involved for enforcement of legal or constitutional rights.
4. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.