JUDGMENT : A.P. Ravani, J. This letters patent appeal is directed against the interim order dated April 5, 1994 passed by the learned single Judge refusing to grant interim relief and stay the operation and implementation of the notification dated March 17, 1993 issued by the Government of India under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ('the Act' for short) and the order dated January 20, 1994 issued by the Licensing Officer under the Act. By the aforesaid notification contract labour in the works specified in the Schedule to the notification i.e. limestone and dolomite mines, in the country has bene prohibited. The Schedule to the notification reads as follows :- "(1) Raising of minerals including breaking, sizing, sorting of limestone/dolomite, and (2) Transportation of limestone and dolomite which includes loading into and unloading from trucks, dumpers, conveyance and transportation from mine site to factory." 2. The learned single judge has admitted the petition mainly on the ground that there was no counter-affidavit filed by the Union of India. In this connection the learned single Judge has observed as follows :- "In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, no interim relief can be granted. Since the notice was issued and in spite of service, no affidavit is filed, I have issued rule." Thus the main reason which weighed with the learned single Judge for issuing rule is that the averments made in the petition remained uncontroverted as there was no affidavit-in-reply. 3. As far as refusal of interim relief is concerned, the learned single Judge has rightly observed that the notification is dated March 17, 1993. The petition is filed some time in February 1994. In an earlier petition (Special Civil Application No. 9401 of 1993) filed on September 13, 1993 the same notification is challenged by the petitioner. Therein so far no interim relief has been granted. It is stated at the Bar that the said petition is at the notice stage and the petition has not even been admitted. As observed in the order by the learned single Judge, even in Civil Application No. 190 of 1994 in Special Civil Application No. 9401 of 1993 filed on January 24, 1994 praying for interim relief, so far no order granting interim or ad interim relief has been passed. 4. As observed in the order by the learned single Judge, even in Civil Application No. 190 of 1994 in Special Civil Application No. 9401 of 1993 filed on January 24, 1994 praying for interim relief, so far no order granting interim or ad interim relief has been passed. 4. The explanation for delay in filing the petition stated in para 10 of the petition cannot be said to be satisfactory and sufficient. The petitioner was aware about the notification having been issued. The petitioner was informed by respondent No. 3 i.e. the Labour Enforcement Officer, Rajkot, vide letter dated July 20, 1993 to stop the employment of contract labour for the work of lime-stone raising and excavation including breaking, sizing etc. Therefore, simply because the petitioner made representation for grant of exemption the petitioner cannot grant stay to itself and advance this reason as sufficient ground for explaining the delay in approaching the Court. 5. The contention that on account of not granting of interim relief irreversible position will be created and therefore balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Once the notification has come into force and if it is stayed, it would create an irreversible position for the labour. Balance of convenience is in favour of the labour rather than in favour of the petitioner. 6. If interim relief is granted the very purpose of issuing notification prohibiting contract labour in the operations mentioned in the Schedule to the impugned notification will be frustrated. The petition would stand substantially allowed even without adjudicating the issues involved in the petition. Innumerable workers, who are not before the Court will suffer hardship and irreparable injury will be caused to them. Be it noted that no union of workmen has been joined in the petition as party respondent. Therefore it would not be proper to grant interim relief which may hurt the workmen who are not before the Court. 6A. While granting or refusing interim relief, the Court should always take into consideration as to whether the interim relief would affect any one who is not party before the Court. Ordinarily the Court would not grant interim relief which may adversely affect the persons who are not before the Court. In the instant case the workmen engaged by the contractor have not been joined. Ordinarily the Court would not grant interim relief which may adversely affect the persons who are not before the Court. In the instant case the workmen engaged by the contractor have not been joined. In case there is no union of the workmen engaged by the Contractor there must be some union of workmen working in the petitioner's establishment representing the interest of the class of workmen as a whole. Even such union of workmen is not joined as party. On this ground also it would not be proper to grant interim relief which would hurt the persons who are not before the Court. 7. While granting or refusing interim relief the Court is of course required to take into consideration the aspect of prima facie case. But that is not the only thing to be seen. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd., reported in AIR 1985 SC 330 , the law presumes that public authorities function properly and bona fide with due regard to the public interest. Therefore the Court must be circumspect in granting interim orders of far-reaching dimensions or orders causing administrative, burden-some inconvenience. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that there are several other vital considerations apart from the existence of a prima facie case. There is the question of balance of convenience. There is the question of irreparable injury. There is the question of the public interest. There are many such factors worthy of consideration. Taking all the relevant aspects into consideration and particularly the circumstance of public interest and the fact that the persons likely to be affected have not even been joined as party respondents it would not be proper to entertain the appeal. In our opinion, public interest demands that no interim relief staying the operation and implementation of the impugned notification be granted. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the same notification has been challenged by other establishments before Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court has granted interim relief. Copy of no such order is produced before us. However, we believe the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellants. But, interim order is no precedent. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the same notification has been challenged by other establishments before Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court has granted interim relief. Copy of no such order is produced before us. However, we believe the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellants. But, interim order is no precedent. Moreover, it may be that the attention of the Delhi High Court might not have been drawn to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar (supra). 9. No other contention is raised. The appeal is summarily dismissed. Appeal dismissed.