JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan. C. J.—The prayers in this writ petition are to direct the third respondent, namely, the State of Himachal Pradesh, to place on record memorandum of understanding entered between the first respondent and the third respondent, to declare the retrenchment of the petitioner with effect from 1-5-1996 as void ab initio to declare the petitioner as a regular employee of the first respondent and hold entitled to all the benefits of regular employee with effect from 5-8-1995, to penalise the first and second respondents for violation of the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulations of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 and to direct the fourth and fifth respondents to place on record the details of registration of the first respondent establishment with them and also details of the Contractors working with the first respondent, who obtained licence as provided by law and also the nature of work being performed by the Contractors in the first respondent-establishment. 2. It is evident from the prayers that the writ petition relates to two aspects of the matter, one relating to the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 According to the petitioner, under section 10, the appropriate Government may after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board prohibit by notification in the official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. It is submitted that under sub-section (2) of section 10, various categories are mentioned and the petitioner will fall within the said categories and therefore, he cannot be engaged through a Contractor. But explanation to section 10 provides that if a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner has not approached the appropriate Government for issue of a notification, but learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that an award passed by the Arbitrators in the industrial dispute relating to the employees in relation to the Cement Manufacturers Association and their workmen, which was notified by the Government in the Gazette of India dated July 20, 1983, tantamounts to a notification under section 10 of the Act. Reliance is placed upon the award of the Arbitrators with regard to demand No 24. Reliance is placed upon the award of the Arbitrators with regard to demand No 24. The demand was that no contract labour shall be allowed to work inside the factory or the mines, or on the repair job of the roads of the mines or the connecting road where the companys dumpers and truck ply to feed lime-stone to crushing plant. The decision of the Arbitrators on that demand is found in paragraphs 219 to 226. In paragraph 226 it is stated that the employment of contract labour already stands abolished except in the case of loading of cement, which includes packing and unloading of coal etc. and it is therefore an agreed position that contract labour will not be employed in any other occupation and that the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act will not come in the way if the Arbitrators direct that the agreement in respect of contract labour from the days of the First Wage Board should be adhered to by the employers. Hence, the Arbitrators held that the unanimous recommendations of the First Wage Board in this regard should be strictly adhered to. 3. We are not prepared to decide here whether the notification, referred to above, containing the award of the Arbitrators would amount to a notification within the meaning of section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. If, the petitioner is so advised he can move the appropriate Industrial Tribunal and contend before the Tribunal that the notification of the award would itself amount to a notification under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. 4. As regards the other limb in the writ petition, it is quite clear that the prayer of the petitioner can be dealt with only by the Industrial Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. In Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and others, AIR 1995 SC 1893, the Court said after referring to several decisions under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, as follows : "These decisions in unambiguous terms lay down that after the coming into operation of the Act, the authority to abolish the contract labour is vested exclusively in the appropriate Government which has to take its decision in the matter in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Act. This conclusion has been arrived at in these decisions on the interpretation of section 10 of the Act. However, it has to be remembered that the authority to abolish the contract labour under section 10 of the Act comes into play only where there exists a genuine contract. In other words, if there is no genuine contract and the so called contract is sham or a camouflage to hide the reality, the said provisions are inapplicable. When in such circumstances, the concerned workmen raise an industrial dispute for relief that they should be deemed to be the employees of the principal employer, the Court or the industrial adjudicator will have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and grant the necessary relief. In this connection, we may refer to the following decisions of this Court which were also relied upon by the counsel for the workmen." 6. As indicated therein, the concerned workman and in this case the petitioner can raise an industrial dispute for such relief as he is entitled on the ground that he should be deemed to be the employee of the principal employer and the industrial adjudicator will have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, consider and grant the necessary relief. In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, as aforesaid, it is only for the Industrial Court to consider the grievance of the petitioner and decide whether he is entitled for grant of any relief. 7. In such circumstances, we are not prepared to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter, which is governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. The petitioner has now filed C. M. P. No. 3917 of 1996, for amending the main writ petition as well as adding the Union of India, Ministry of Labour and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh II, as parties thereto 9. As the view we have taken is that the remedy of the petitioner is to go before the Industrial Tribunal, we are dismissing the writ petition as well as this CMP. CM. P. No. 2024 0/1996: In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the present application is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.