ORDER : 1. These Writ petitions present not an intricate question of law nor tangled web of facts, but purely a human problem and have to be dealt with keeping in view of the concept of social justice and humanistic approach of law. 2. Delhi High Court has a canteen establishment for catering to the needs of the members of the Bar as also the litigating public visiting the Court. The system appears to be that the work of running a canteen in the space provided in the building of the High Court used to be entrusted to a contractor and the period of duration of the contract was specified in the contract leaving open to the High Court either to renew it or induct a fresh contractor. 3. The petitioner herein are 17 in number and they are working for years in the canteen while the contractor may be changing or continuing year to year. They are working uninterruptedly for nearly a decade. It is so happened that when the term of the contractor was about to expire on December 31st, 1983, a notice of termination of service was served on all the petitioner is and then thrown out of employment. While canteen runs for the benefit of members of the Bar and the public, the workmen are rendered destitute and in starvation. This is the present situation. 4. These 17 canteen workmen through their union called the Canteen Mazdoor Sabha and Canteen Employees of the Delhi High Court Canteen moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for their re induction in service broadly alleging that if the canteen runs, the removal or induction of outgoing contract-of should not make any difference in their position because they have render continuous service and are willing to continue to render of and their services cannot be terminated or discontinued as the High Court and the Canteen continue to exist. The petitioners pray that the High Court should run the canteen as a department of the High Court. 5. After the notices were issued, amongst others Registrar of the Delhi High Court appeared and Mr. M.S. Gujaral, learned counsel appeared for the Delhi High Court. The approach was not of any technical legal aquatable. The petitioners pray that the High Court should run the canteen as a department of the High Court. 5. After the notices were issued, amongst others Registrar of the Delhi High Court appeared and Mr. M.S. Gujaral, learned counsel appeared for the Delhi High Court. The approach was not of any technical legal aquatable. Everyone endeavoured to find out a solution to this human problems failing which the law would take its own course and it is not that insipid. 6. A suggestion was discussed that whenever a fresh contract is given for running the canteen, the High Court may proceed to induct a contractor but in such an event the workers will continue to retain their services under the contractor. It was suggested that to make this an effective and binding part of a contract a term to the effect should be incorporated in the contract. This suggestion found favour with the High Court. Time was granted to work out the modalities of the suggestion. 7. Today when the matter was called out Mr. M.S. Gujaral learned counsel appeared and stated that the Court may give appropriate directions to secure the right of the High Court to incorporate a term in the contract for running the canteen through a contractor that the petitioners working uninterruptedly or in continuous service will continue even if a fresh contract is negotiated and in the case of a new contract or he must agree and undertake to continue to employ the petitioners as a part of the negotiated term of contract. It was submitted that keeping these workmen in view the Court may give any appropriate directions. 8. Having regard to all the aspects and circumstances of the case, the High Court of Delhi while negotiating or giving a fresh contract for running the canteen shall incorporate a term in the contract that the contractor shall employ these petitioners in the canteen and continue to employ them for the duration of contract and shall pay if not more, minimum wages applicable to them. The new contract must be entered into latest by March 31, 1985 unless it can be done earlier. Petitioners shall be reinducted in service in the canteen latest by March 31, 1985. Not to employ them must and will be treated as a breach of contract. 9. These unfortunate workers are jobless for about 14 months. The new contract must be entered into latest by March 31, 1985 unless it can be done earlier. Petitioners shall be reinducted in service in the canteen latest by March 31, 1985. Not to employ them must and will be treated as a breach of contract. 9. These unfortunate workers are jobless for about 14 months. It is hoped that their agony would come to an end soon. Liberty to move to this Court if and difficulty is experienced. 10. With these observations the writ petitions are disposed of. Disposing of the petition.