JUDGMENT : 1. We have repeatedly observed that bad cases stand on the way of disposal of good cases. The present case is a glaring example and an illustration for the said proposition. Nalco Workers Union has filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs: "The petitioner therefore most fervently pray(s) that this Hon'ble Court will be pleaded to admit the application and issue notice to the opposite party and after hearing issue the following writs. 1. A writ of certiorari quashing the order of Assistant Labour Commissioner (i.e. Annexure -7 dated February 22, 1994) 2. A writ of mandamus directing opposite party to hold conciliation on the charter of demands. 3. And any other writ and/ or orders as may deem fit and proper for fair disposal of the case." 2. The sole opposite party is the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Angul. We have perused the writ petition and also perused the impugned order, copy whereof is Annexure 7. The Workers' Union has highlighted the demand for abolition of contract Labour system, regularisation by the principal employer and for bonus. These three demands cannot be considered by the Conciliation Officer. There is specific forum for consideration as to abolition of contract labour system by the Central Government taking note of several factors. If there are contractor's employees and there is no abolition, no scope is there for regularisation. Demand for payment of bonus by the principal employer to the employee of the contractors also does not arise. Our attention is drawn to a decision reported in R.K. Panda and others v. Steel Authority of India and others 1994 (69) FLR 256 (SC). In particular pur attention is drawn to paragraph-7 of the said decision. For better appreciation, paragraph-7 is quoted hereinbelow: "7. It is true that with the passage of time and purely with a view to safeguard the interest of workers, many principal employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting that the contractor or the new contractor retains 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. 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. Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer 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 possible for the High Court or this Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or 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." 3. We have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner Union that the conciliation officer by his reasoned order has disposed of the matter holding that it is not within his domain of consideration. Learned counsel for the Union has not appreciated and he insisted that Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act is a mandate for the Conciliation Officer to conciliate whatever grievance is made. According to him, the conciliation officer is the labour forum and he is competent to consider the charter of demands. 4. We have perused the reasoned order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner who is all the more justified to observe what the law demands. Patiently we have heard. We have tried to understand the points diligently. But we are fully convinced that the present writ petition is an abuse of the process of law. 4. We have perused the reasoned order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner who is all the more justified to observe what the law demands. Patiently we have heard. We have tried to understand the points diligently. But we are fully convinced that the present writ petition is an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner has unnecessarily wasted time of several workers, spent money for nothing and taking time of the Court unnecessarily. We dismiss the writ petition and allow cost of Rs. 2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred). Final Result : Dismissed