JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondents from engaging contract labour and for reinstating the helpers and other workers if their services are terminated during the pendency of the writ petition. The facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus. 2. The Ganganagar Co-operative Oil Seed Processing Mills Ltd. (hereinafter to be called 'the Mills') (Respondent No. 5) is an instrumentality of the State. It manufactures edible oils. Power connection has been taken by it from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board as a non-seasonal establishment. It has been decided to start a solvent plant and the extension work is at its primary stage. There have been settlements in the year 1985 and 1988 in between the petitioner Union and the Respondent No. 5. The services of the members of the petitioner Union are governed by the Standing Orders duly certified under the Industrial Disputes (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It has nowhere been provided in this Standing Orders that Respondent No. 5 can engage contract labour. The Mills have no authority to change service conditions of the members of the petitioners' Union by engaging contract labour without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'). The Mills have got published advertisement (Annexure 3) in the 'Rajasthan Patrika', Bikaner dated January 10, 1991, inviting applications from helpers, seasonal clerks, chemists and others. The total strength of the helpers is 79 but seniority list shows their strength to be 59 only. The names of the helpers who have completed 240 days are shown in the list (Annexure 4). Inviting applications from Contractors for supplying Helpers and other workmen to the Mills amounts to depriving them of their permanent status and their regularisation on the said posts. This practice amounts to unfair labour practice and violates the provisions of the Act and it also hits Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. In their reply, the Mills have raised several preliminary objections. Firstly, the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 10(2), Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Secondly, the writ petition is premature as the respondents have no intention to terminate the services of the helpers and other workmen who have completed more than 240 days except in accordance with law. Firstly, the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 10(2), Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Secondly, the writ petition is premature as the respondents have no intention to terminate the services of the helpers and other workmen who have completed more than 240 days except in accordance with law. Thirdly, the State of Rajasthan, Secretaries of the Co-operative and Agricultural Departments of Labour Commissioner of the Government of Rajasthan (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4) are not necessary parties and they have unnecessarily been impleaded in the writ petition. Fourthly, the writ petition involves several disputed questions of fact. It has further been averred in the reply by the Mills that it is incorrect to say that the power connection taken by them is non-seasonal, presently it is a sick unit, Certified Standing Orders not been produced and in their absence the petitioners cannot be permitted to say anything, contract labour is being engaged by the Mills since the inception. Certified Standing Orders are applicable only to the employees engaged by the Mills. Engagement of contract labour does not change the service conditions of the employees, the strength of the helpers and workmen always changes, some of them have left, the Mills have no intention to remove any of them, in any eventuality if their removal becomes necessary, it will be done in accordance with law and there is no change in the service conditions of the permanent employees. 4. The only question for consideration in this case is whether the employment of contract labour will change the service conditions of the members of the petitioner-Union. Section 9A of the Act runs as under: "9. 4. The only question for consideration in this case is whether the employment of contract labour will change the service conditions of the members of the petitioner-Union. Section 9A of the Act runs as under: "9. A. Notice of Change,- No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change: (a) without giving to the workman likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or (b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice: Provided that no notice shall be required for affecting any such change- (a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or award; or (b) where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply". 5. Temporary engagement of contract labour does not effect any change in the conditions of service of any workman. Item No. 11 of the Fourth Schedule of the Act runs as under: "11. Any increase or reduction (other than casual) in the number of person employed or to be employed in any occupation or process or department of shift not occasioned by circumstances over which the employer has no control". 6. Engagement of casual labour is not included in this condition. It has specifically been stated in their reply and was also stated by the learned counsel for the Mills during arguments vide order sheet dated July 25, 1991 that the service of any members of the petitioner-Union is not going to be terminated except in accordance with law. The workmen engaged by the contractors for carrying out the work of the Mills would not be the employees (workmen) of the Mills. As such there is no question of the seniority of the members of the petitioners* Union being adversely affected. The workmen engaged by the contractors for carrying out the work of the Mills would not be the employees (workmen) of the Mills. As such there is no question of the seniority of the members of the petitioners* Union being adversely affected. It may also be mentioned here that it is not the case of the petitioner that it was agreed upon in between the parties during the settlements which took place in the years 1985 and 1988 in between them that the Mills would not engage any Contract labour. On the contrary, the case of the Mills is that contract labour is being engaged since establishment of the Mills and it has not been rebutted by way of filing rejoinder. Simple advertisement for inviting contractor to supply labours neither amounts to nor results in the removal of the present workmen. By the engagement of the contract labour, the status of the members of the petitioner-union is not going to be affected in any way. Wrongful discharge and termination of services are not conditions of service as contemplated under Section 9-A of the Act. Thus there is no force in the writ petition. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. *******