JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The order in this petition shall also govern the disposal of the connected petition M.P. 3574/1986 (Bhilai Ispat Mazdoor Sangh and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India and Ors.) which were heard together as the question involved in them is common. 2. The Writ Petition 2926/86 is with regard to the claim of the petitioners union for regularisation and payment of equal pay to the contract labour employed in the Building Construction work of the employer. The Writ Petition 3574/86 is concerning such claim of contract labour employed by the Contractor in work of Loading and Unloading in the Coke Oven Department of the employer's industry. 3. In both the petitions the common relief claimed by the contract labour is for regularisation of their services under the Principal Employer i .e. Steel Authority of India running the Bhilai Steel Plant and for payment of wages to them equal to the wages paid by the Principal Employer to its employees directly recruited by it. 4. Shri H.B. Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner in his address to the Court submitted that his clients would be satisfied if they are granted the reliefs or directions as were granted by the Supreme Court in relation to contract labour of Rourkela Steel Plant in the case of R.K Panda and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India and Ors. (1997-III-LLJ (Suppl.)-1202). 5. Shri M. Chapeker appearing for the respondent Principal Employer i.e. the Steel Authority of India owning the Bhilai Steel Plant took this court through the relevant portion of the judgment of R.K. Panda case of the Supreme Court (supra). It is pointed out that on the basis of the legal provisions and keeping in view the ambit of jurisdiction of this Court, the relief claimed by the contract labour in that case was held as not worthy of being granted to them.Certain directions, however, were made by the Supreme Court in that case under special circumstances and because under several interim orders passed by the Supreme Court the employees had already voluntarily retired or had continued in the employment in the Industry for a long period of time. 6. 6. Distinguishing the case of the Supreme Court (supra), the learned counsel for the Principal employer submits that none of the reliefs claimed of regulansation or equal pay can be granted to the employees in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the remedy of petitioners, if any, is to pproach the appropriate Industrial or Labour Court or the concerned authorities under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is submitted that the relief of regularisation cannot be granted as admittedly the claim is by the labour engaged by the Contractor of the Principal Employer. For seeking relief for abolition of contract labour, the (appropriate) remedy is to approach the appropriate Labour authorities under Section 10 of the above Act of 1970. The relief of equal pay for equal work at par with employees of the Principal Employer also cannot be granted to the contract labourers, unless the contract labourers are absorbed in the services of the Principal employer. For granting such relief, it would be necessary to enquire into the conditions of employment of the contract labour and their nature of work. The relief can be granted only after evidence of employer and employees are recorded on the controversial issues in appropriate proceedings before the Competent Authority under the Industrial law. 7. In his counter reply Shri Agrawal for the employees made a reference to Ajit Singh Saudagar v. State Industrial Court 1975 MPLJ 371 , to submit that since the contract labourers are not employed directly by the principal employer, they will have no remedy to approach the Labour Court under provisions of M.P. Industrial Relation Act, 1960. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the parties. This Court finds that the dispute brought by the employees in this Court is not justiciable in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Pand and Ors. (supra) no doubt is concerning the contract labourers employed in Rourkela Steel Plant under the Steel Authority of India Ltd., but as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the employer, certain directions by the Supreme Court were given because of the peculiar facts of that case in which under several interim orders employees' conditions of service had been altered. On the legal question however, the relief claimed by the workmen has been negatived by observing thus : "Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the Principal employers in course of time and whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smokescreen as has been urged in this case, is a question of fact and has to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not possble for the High Court or this Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 136 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. 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 forum to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them." 9. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court mentioned above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the petitioner to work out their rights and remedies either by approaching the Labour Court under the provisions of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 or under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The judgment in the case of Ajit Singh (supra) of the Division Bench to which a reference has been made is totally on a different point and cannot be read as conclusively denying right of the petitioners to take recourse to the provisions of M.P.I.R. Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons the petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise the matter in appropriate forum under the industrial Law or the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. In the circumstances, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. The amount of security, if deposited be returned to the petitioners. 11. A copy of this order be placed on the record of Writ Petition 3574/1986.