JUDGMENT 1. Five writ petitions were filed on behalf of the Workmen individually as well as through their Union who were working under the Labour Contractor at the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited project at Shakti Nagar Distt. Sonbhadra. Now the said National Thermal power Corporation has been named as Singrauli Super Thermal power station, Shakti Nagar Distt. Sonbhadra. Writ petition no. 18596 of 1990 and 18595 of 1990 filed by the All India Engineering and General Mazdoor Union have been dismissed as infructuous. The three petitions namely Writ petition No. 33388/90: S. K. Upadhyay and others v. National Thermal Power Corporation and others and two other writ petition nos. 26015/90 and 29536/90 have been heard together as the controversy involved in these three petitions are common and it may be decided by one common judgment. This counter, rejoinder, supplementary counter and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the petitions are ready for hearing. Without passing orders for admission the petitions being heard finally with the consent of the parties and the Rules of the Court. The W. P. No. 33388/90 S. K. Upadhyya and others is treated as the leading case. 2. By the petition, the petitioners have prayed for [issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 19-11-90 (Annexure- 6 to the writ petition) for terminating the services of the petitioners of the leading writ petition. The second prayer is for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 and 2 to regularise the services of the petitioners and make them permanent employees of the respondent no. 2 -w.e.f. the date of their engagement in the service of the respondent no. 2. Thirdly, the prayer is that writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent no. 3 to take immediate action under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The other two prayers are formal in nature. The petitioners case in the writ petitions is that there is a big concern by name, M/s. National Thermal power corporation who are engaged in the generation of electricity through Thermal plants. The Organisation is a very big Organisation and they have a plant having capacity of 200 Mg. Wt. units for the production of electricity. There are five generating Units. The Organisation is a very big Organisation and they have a plant having capacity of 200 Mg. Wt. units for the production of electricity. There are five generating Units. The petitioner's claim that they were.appointed through trade test in their respective trades e.g. Fitter Welder, Rigger and Helper and their tests was taken by the Engineers and Senior Officers of the National Thermal power Corporation (in short here-in-after mentioned as N.T.P.C.). The petitioners though are working for last number of years regularly with N.T.P.C. they have not been regularised and are kept on daily wages. The petitioners pleaded that they are working directly under the control and supervision of the Engineers and Senior Officers of the N.T.P.C. but to camouflage and avoid the legal benefits which accrued to the workmen, the NTPC got Contractors in between. The contractors are engaged by the NTPC respondent who are only concerned with making payment to the workmen once in a month. They have no other work except for making payment to the Workmen. The petitioners further urged that NTPC cleverly had been changing the Contractors from time to time. The petitioner who are skilled worker continued working for the NTPC but they are paid as daily wages workers through different contractors from time to time. The submission of the petitioners is that the process of electricity generation is a continuous process and the petitioners and other workers are engaged for regular job, the petitioners stated that there are three shifts in 24 hours and they attend regularly to the plant and also attend at the time of some break-downs etc. The petitioners have thus tried to emphasise that they are regular worker of the NTPC, and are regularly working with them, but on account of the camouflage of the NTPC, they are being treated as daily wages workers under the contractors. The petitioners have received one notice, Annexure 6' with the writ petitions by which the Contractor, M/s. Upendra Engineering and Company, served the petitioners with notice dated 17-4-90 that all the persons working in emergency break-down, the running maintenance of Ash Handling System Stage Ist, Working on daily wages under a contract shall cease to work w.e f. 20-12-90. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said notice approached this Court by the writ petition and claimed a relief, already stated in the earlier paragraphs. 3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said notice approached this Court by the writ petition and claimed a relief, already stated in the earlier paragraphs. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed the provisions of section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (here in after referred to as the Act) provisions of section 7 of the Act are quoted as under. "Registration of certain establishment :- (1) Every principal employer of an establishment to which this Act applies shall, within such period as the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix in this behalf with respect to establishments generally or with respect to any class of them, make an application to the registering officer in the prescribed manner for registration of the establish ment : Provided that the registering officer may entertain any such application for registration after expiry of the period fixed in this behalf, if the registering officer is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. (2) If the application for registration is complete in all respects, the registering officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of the establishment a certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed." 4. The submission of the petitioners is that the NTPC respondents are not registered as required under section 7 of the Act. Thus they are not legally competent to engage contractors for engaging the workmen on daily wages. The moment it is held that NTPC are not registered under section 7 of the said Act. the petitioners and all workmen working through the contractors shall be deemed in law to be direct employee of NTPC. The petitioners averments in the writ petition that the respondent no. 2, NTPC, were not registered under section 7 of the Act is denied by the respondent no. 2. In the rejoinder affidavit, it has been pointed out by the petitioners that the NTPC respondent no. 2 was registered in 1978. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the registration made in 1978 was specified for a particular purpose and for particular assignment. The respondent no. 2 has not got their registration amended and they are illegally taking work from the petitioners which amounts to violation of law. 2 was registered in 1978. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the registration made in 1978 was specified for a particular purpose and for particular assignment. The respondent no. 2 has not got their registration amended and they are illegally taking work from the petitioners which amounts to violation of law. He further urged that since the registration of the respondent no. 2 under section 7 was not for the purpose which actually the respondent no. 2 are doing, it shall be deemed to be a nullity in the eye of law. The allegation of the petitioners that respondent NTPC was not registered under section 7 of the Act was denied by them. The petitioners have not been able to show that for what particular purpose the registration was made in 1978 and what was the change or variations in the nature of work of the respondent during this period. The fact has been stated without any material document to substantiate that there was any variation in purpose in the registration. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to cite any provision of law which required renewal of the registration under the Act. It has also not been shown that the registration made in favour of the respondent NTPC was cancelled. The registration once made could be revoked under provision of section 8 of the Act. The provisions of section 8 are reproduced as under : "Revocation of registration of certain cases :- If the registering officer is satisfied, either on a reference made to him in this behalf or otherwise, that the registration of any establishment has been obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact, or that for any other reason the registration has become useless or ineffective and, therefore, requires to be revoked, the registering officer may after giving an opportunity to the principal employer of the establishment to be heard and with the previous approval of the appropriate Government, revoke the registration." 5. Since there is no order for cancellation of the resigistration, it shall be presumed in law that the registration made in favour of the respondent no. 2 still stands. 6. It is well-settled that contract system for employing the workmen is not illegal by any Act or law. Since there is no order for cancellation of the resigistration, it shall be presumed in law that the registration made in favour of the respondent no. 2 still stands. 6. It is well-settled that contract system for employing the workmen is not illegal by any Act or law. The law enacted, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 does not declare that all the contracts for labours are ip-so-facto illegal. The contract system of the employment of labour can be abolished by application of the law. The Honourable Supreme Court in B. H. E. L. Workers' Association, Hardwar v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 409 observed : "Thus we see that no invidious distinction can be made against contract labour. Contract labour is entitled to the same rates, holidays, hours of work and conditions of service as are applicable to the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work. They are entitled to recover their wages and their conditions of service in the same manner as workers employed by the principal employer under the appropriate Industrial and Labour Laws. If there is any dispute with regard to the type of work, the dispute has to be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). IT is clear that parliament has not abolished contract labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, it is not for the court to enquire into the question and decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process operation or other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. This is a matter for the decision of the Government after consideration under section 10 of the Act. Similarly, the question whether the work done by contract labour is the same or similar work as that done by the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of any establishment is master to be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner under (he proviso to Rule 25 (ii) (v) (a)." Thus in view of the clear provisions in the Act and the decision quoted above, the respondent No. 2 NTPC were legally competent to engage contract labour for their electric generation plants. There is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no 2 are not registered. and legally competent to engage contractor for getting their work on daily wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the process of generation of electricity through thermal plants is a continuous process and is to continue perennially and is done through regular workmen in the establishment. The petitioners are sufficient in number and are to work whole time in shifts. Although, they have been working for the last several years continuously with some breaks through different contractors by the NTPC-respondent no. 2. The submission that the NTPC-respondent no. 2 cannot be permitted to exploit the labourers through the contractors and deprive them the benefit of law to which they are legally entitled. It is submitted that necessary orders for prohibition of employment of contract labour by NTPC-respondent no. 2 be issued Learned counsel submitted that in similar circumstances where the workmen were engaged by contractors to serve the catering cleaners. Southern Railway, the Supreme Court decided the case in favour of the workmen under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. He cited. The Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 777 . In the said case, it was held that the nature of work of catering cleaners was of a perennial nature and the nature of the industry trade, was to continue. However, it is important to note that Honourable the Supreme Court also directed that in case representation if made to the Central Government or the appropriate government for deciding the question under section 10, the appropriate government or the Centra' Government may decide tae reference under section 10 within 6 months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner are also working with the NTPC-respondent no 2, they may be permitted to continue in service till the reference may be decided by the appropriate government, as was directed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. Shri v. b Upadhyaya, the learned senior counsel for NTPC-respondent no 2, submitted that the petitioners were not appointed by the NTPC after trade tests as the petitioner have pleaded. Shri v. b Upadhyaya, the learned senior counsel for NTPC-respondent no 2, submitted that the petitioners were not appointed by the NTPC after trade tests as the petitioner have pleaded. The petitioners have wrongly stated that the workmen working under the contract system are required to work under the supervision and direct control of the engineers and superior officers of the NTPC It is also denied that the contractors engaged by the respondent no 2 are only required to disburse monthly wages once in a month to the daily wage workers. The respondents categorically stated that the contractors are required not only to supply daily wage workers but are also required to supply other articles as per contract with them. Their work is not of regular nature. It is submitted that no relief can legally be granted to the petitioners in the present petition. He pointed out there was a Board already constituted in the aforesaid case of catering cleaners which had already submitted a report that the work of the catering cleaners was perennial and continuous in nature. In such circumstances the Supreme Court had directed that their services may continue till the representation under section 10 of the Act was decided by the appropriate authority. In the present case, there is factual dispute. The fact that the petitioners are not engaged in a continuous process of electricity generation, they are required only on certain occasions at the instance of the contractor. The fact that they are skilled or semi-skilled workers is denied by the respondents. The respondeat pleaded to have their own regular employees who are regularly working with them. The work of the labourers through the contractors is casual and not continuous. In view of this facts it becomes the question of fact and this court cannot in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution record a finding on such issues. 7. It is strange that the petitioners have sought for relief of quashing of the notice of termination of their services given by the contractors. M/s. Upendra Engineering and Company, dated 19-11-90 (Annexure-6 to the petition) but the petitioners have failed to implead the said contractors in the array ;of respondents; This is settled principle of law that no order can be passed behind the back of a person, which would amount to violation of rule of natural justice. M/s. Upendra Engineering and Company, dated 19-11-90 (Annexure-6 to the petition) but the petitioners have failed to implead the said contractors in the array ;of respondents; This is settled principle of law that no order can be passed behind the back of a person, which would amount to violation of rule of natural justice. Since the petitioner failed to implead the aforesaid contractor as respondent in the petition the notice impugned cannot be quashed. Nor any direction can be given to the said contractor. Thus, the prayer for quashing the notice dated 19-11-90 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is liable to be rejected. IT is made clear that prayer for quashing the notice aforesaid, terminating the services of the petitioners, is not refused only on the ground that the contractor concerned who had issued the notice has not been arrayed as a respondent in the petition. The NTPC respondent no. 2 cannot be said to have indulged in any unfair labour practice of getting their work done through the contract labour. Admittedly, the NTPC are registered under the provision of section 7 of the Act and they are legally competent to get their work done through the contractor. The prayer for regularising the petitioners in their service also cannot be granted by this court. The petitioner have failed to prove that they were ever engaged or employed by the NTPC- respondent no. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners were working through the contractors. Thus, there is no occasion or justification to issue any such direction to the NTPC, respondent no. 2 to regularise the service of the petitioners. IT has been pointed out that a number of workmen working under certain other labour contractors through their union approached the State Government in a reference under section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act. IT is stated that the said labour union of workmen who were working under the labour contractors of NTPC-respondent no. 2 have succeeded and the order for making reference under section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication about their services, Without expressing any opinion about the validity of the reference under section 4-K to the Labour Court, to my opinion mind, the only remedy for the petitioners available is to make representation to the appropriate government under section 10 of the Act for issuance of orders prohibiting employment of contract labour in the organisation. It was held in AIR 1972 SC 1942 that if the work for which the contract labour is employed is incidential to and closely connected with the main activity of the industry and is of perennial and permanent nature, the abolition of contract would be justified. The power to abolish contract labour in any establishment is vested in the appropriate government and its decision in that respect is final. The Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question of abolition of contract labour. Even if award abolishing the contract labour is passed by the Industrial Tribunal, it cannot be enforced after the commencement of the Central Act The Supreme Court observed in paragraph 45 of the said judgment that the appropriate government when taking action under section 10 of the Act will have an over-all picture of the industries carrying on similar activities and decide whether the contract labour is to be abolished in respect of any of the activities of that industry. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the jurisdiction to decide the abolition of contract labour, or the put it differently, of prohibiting the employment of contract labour is now to be done in accordance with section 10. Therefore, it is proper that the question whether contract labour regarding the industry of the appellant is to be abolished or not, is left to be dealt with by the appropriate government under the Act. 8. In view of the facts, circumstances of the case and the law stated above, no relief for abolition of the contract labour system prevailing at the concern of the NTPC respondent no. 2 can be passed in the present proceeding However, in case the petitioner submit a representation under section 10 of the Act before the appropriate government, the question of abolition of the contract system practised by the respondent no. 2 NTPC may be adjudicated, The petitioners have prayed for a direction/writ of mandamus to be issued for abolition of contract system of employing labourers by the NTPC. The petitioners have not pointed out any such representation made to the appropriate government or the Central Government for abolition of the contract system in the organisation of the NTPC respondent no. 2. As there is no representation pending before the appropriate government to decide the representation under section 10 of the Act, no such mandamus can be issued at this stage. 2. As there is no representation pending before the appropriate government to decide the representation under section 10 of the Act, no such mandamus can be issued at this stage. However, in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, if the petitioners submit such a representation under section 10 of the Act before the appropriate government, the appropriate government or the Central Government may decide the representation at an early date, if possible, within one year from the date of making of the representation. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in 1987 SC 777 (supra) the Supreme Court had issued a direction to decide within 6 months. It was urged that the period of deciding the representation may not exceed 6 months. I have considered this request also, but I am of the view that the present case of the petitioners further requires adjudication and view that the present case of the petitioners further requires adjudication and decision on certain question of the fact which may consume some time. In the 1987 case (supra). a board had already been constituted which had decided that the nature of work was perennial and the work was to continue in future. Thus, the observation made for deciding the representation under section 10 may be as early as possible, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of reference. In the writ petition, the State of Uttar Pradesh was not arrayed as opposite party initially. The State of U. P. is permitted to be impleaded as opposite party in the writ petition learned Standing counsel has no objection to the impleadment. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is dismissed with the observations above. This judgment also covers the connected Writ Petition No. 29536 of 1990 Brij Bhan Singh and others v. M/s. N. T. P. C, and others, and the Writ Petition no. 26015 of 90 ; Pramod Kumar Singh and others v. M/s. N. T. P. C. and others. There shall be no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.