JUDGMENT : S. Chatterji, J 1. The present writ application at the instance of Indane Bottling Plant Sramika Congress, a registered union, seeks reliefs by way of issuance of a writ of mandamus to command opposite party No. 1 namely, Indian Oil Corporation, having its Indane Bottling Plant at Chhanpur, in the district of Balasore, to take into consideration the cases of the contract labourers mentioned in the writ petition for their permanent absorption in the permanent posts created by opposite party No. 1 for the second shift or in the alternative in the existing posts in the first shift, as may be deemed fit by this Court. It is, however, stated in the writ petition that the recruitment of permanent labourers against permanent posts for the second shift for the same and similar kind of work as now undertaken by contract labourers which amount to serious discrimination against the members of the petitioner- Union and will be against the spirit of the Act and irreparable loss will be caused to the interest of the contract labourers already working in the plant. 2. The present writ petition was presented on March 3, 1995. This Court had issued notice on March 4, 1995 and an interim order was made on the same day with a direction that the candidature of the petitioners will be considered, if they are found eligible without prejudice and any step taken by the opposite parties in making any appointment will abide by the result of the writ application. 3. The learned Advocate for opposite party No. 1 entered appearance and filed an application for vacating the interim order and raised the question of maintainability of the writ application. The matter has been set down for comprehensive hearing and having heard Mr. S. Mohapatra learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. G. Rath, learned Advocate for the opposite parties being assisted by a team of learned lawyers, we find that this case has its own history. Out attention has been drawn to an order dated October 24, 1994 passed in O.J.C. No. 8970 of 1993. In the said case, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was a party itself and had challenged the order of reference so far as it related to the question of impleading the petitioner as a party to the reference. Out attention has been drawn to an order dated October 24, 1994 passed in O.J.C. No. 8970 of 1993. In the said case, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. was a party itself and had challenged the order of reference so far as it related to the question of impleading the petitioner as a party to the reference. The main ground on which the petitioner assailed the order in question was that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the workmen at whose instance the dispute had been raised, and even though under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, the petitioner may be ultimately liable in the event an award in favour of the workman is not implemented by the Contractor, but the petitioner cannot be a party to the dispute and should not be required to participate in the proceedings. Discussing all the facts and circumstances and referring to several reported decisions, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the said writ application directing that the principal employer namely, opposite party No. 1 before us should not be arrayed as a party to the industrial dispute in question. Subsequently, another writ application was filed being O.J.C. No. 5619 of 1994 at the instance of Indane Bottling Plant Sramika Congress praying for issuance of an appropriate writ in the form of direction to opposite party No. 3, namely, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) to refer the failure report in the conciliation proceeding to the appropriate Government within such period as may be deemed fit by the Court. The said matter was disposed of in terms of the order dated January 3, 1995. The said Division Bench recorded the submission of Mr. Rath, learned Advocate for opposite party No. 1 namely, Indane Bottling Plant, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. that it was not a necessary party to the litigation. The Court also directed opposite party No. 3 to conclude the conciliation proceeding within a period of six weeks and the writ petition was disposed of. 4. Another writ petition being O.J.C No. 3620 of 1994 was filed at the instance of Indane Bottling Plant Sramika Congress praying for a direction upon the opposite party No. 1. The Court also directed opposite party No. 3 to conclude the conciliation proceeding within a period of six weeks and the writ petition was disposed of. 4. Another writ petition being O.J.C No. 3620 of 1994 was filed at the instance of Indane Bottling Plant Sramika Congress praying for a direction upon the opposite party No. 1. Indane Bottling Plant to take into consideration the cases of the contract labourers mentioned in the writ petition for their permanent absorption in the permanent posts created by opposite party No. 1 for the second shift or in the alternative absorb them in the existing post in the first shift as may be deemed fit by this Court. The said Division Bench by order dated March 14, 1995 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition recording that the learned Advocate for the petitioner namely, Indane Bottling Plant Sramika Congress, submitted that the petitioner would move the concerned functionaries of opposite party No. 1 Company for consideration of the case of its member for employment in second shift and file a fresh writ application in the matter if necessary. Our attention has also been drawn to another writ application in O.J.C No. 2265 of 1995 which was disposed of on May 3, 1995 recording that the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Indane Bottling Plant Sramika Congress sought permission to withdraw the writ application in view of the subsequent development. The writ application was permitted to be withdrawn. In case the petitioner felt further aggrieved it was open to him to file an application afresh. In the background of all the aforesaid facts, the present writ application has been moved. We are of the view that instead of filing repeated applications and lest there would be any abuse of the process of law the matter should be disposed of taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and by giving a specific finding thereto. 5. Patiently we have heard Mr. S. Mohapatra and Mr. D. Rath, learned Advocates for the respective parties. Our attention has been drawn to a latest decision of the Apex Court, reported in 1994 SC 303 S.K. Panda and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India and Ors., particularly to paragraphs, 5, 6 and 7. The entire facts and the ratio of the decision have been incorporated. S. Mohapatra and Mr. D. Rath, learned Advocates for the respective parties. Our attention has been drawn to a latest decision of the Apex Court, reported in 1994 SC 303 S.K. Panda and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India and Ors., particularly to paragraphs, 5, 6 and 7. The entire facts and the ratio of the decision have been incorporated. It has been found by the Apex Court in clear and unequivocal terms that between the principal employer and the employees of the contractors, there is no relationship. In an appropriate case the appropriate Government u/s 10 of the I.D. Act should consider the several factors for abolition of the contract labourers in the industry concerned. Neither the Act nor Rules framed by the Central Govt. or by the appropriate Government provide that upon abolition of the contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal employer. From the said decision, it is clear that the doubts have been set at rest that it is not for the Court to enquire into the question and to decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the Government after considering the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. The Apex Court further held that with the passage of time and purely with a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting that the contractor of the new contract retain the old employees. In fact, such a condition is incorporated in the contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularisation in the employment of the principal employer. This aspect of the case should not be considered wither by the High Court or by the Supreme Court under Article 136 as it is not possible for the High Court or the Supreme Court while exercising writ jurisdiction to decide such questions, only on the basis of the affidavits. It need not be pointed out that in all such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. It need not be pointed out that in all such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a matter which has to be established on material produced before the Court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the competent fora to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them. True it is Mr. Mohapatra has drawn our attention that in the facts of the said case, the Supreme Court made certain directions. Abnormal cases always require abnormal prescription. In the said case the Supreme Court made certain directions taking note of the development of the matter. From the ratio of that decision, it is clear that the grievance as canvassed before us by filing repeated writ applications as noted above, cannot be effectively decided by the writ Court and the writ petition as opposed is not maintainable. Mr. Mohapatra has further submitted that the main grievance refers to the employment inasmuch as some of the employees of the contractors if found eligible cannot ask for consideration while the permanent posts are being filled up by the principal employer. This last aspect is not covered by the facts in the petition nor is there any prayer. We hold that the concept of the provisions of law to seek the reliefs for regularisation of the employment by the principal worker is uncalled for and the petition as filed is not maintainable. As to the other question for direction to the Central Government to take steps u/s 10 of the Act or reliefs to the employees of the contract employers against the principal employer the same be considered in appropriate cases if the grievances are made. 6. With such observation we dispose of the writ application accordingly. The interim order stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs. R.K. Patra, J. 7. I agree.