K. Ramamoorthy, J. ( 1 ) THE workers in Rourkela Steel Plant, including the workmen, now represented by the petitioner association, sought relief in the Supreme Court of India for abolition of contract labour and also regularisation. The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and had given certain directions. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in "r. K. Panda and Others Vs. Steel Authority of India and Others", (1994) 5 SCC 304 . ( 2 ) DIRECTIONS issued by the Supreme Court are as under:- "hence taking all facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we direct that: (I) All labourers, who had been initially engaged through contractors but have been continuously working with the respondent for the last 10 years on different jobs assigned to them in spite of the replacement and change of the contractors, shall be absorbed by the respondent, as their regular employees subject to being found medically fit and if they are below 58 years of age, which is the age of superannuation under the respondent. (II) While absorbing them as regular employees their inter-se seniority shall be determined department/job-wise on the basis of their continuous employment. (III) They will not be entitled to the difference in their contractual and regular wages till the date of their absorption. After absorption as regular employees, they shall be paid wages, allowances etc. on a par with their counterparts, working as regular employees with the respondent. If in respect of any group of contract labourers, no rate of wages or emoluments have been fixed by the respondent because those jobs had not been performed by the regular employees of the respondent in the past, the contract labourers so absorbed for performing the said jobs, shall be paid at the minimum rate payable to the unskilled workmen, doing other similar jobs. (IV) After absorption, the contract labourers will be governed exclusively by the terms and conditions prescribed by the respondent for its own employees irrespective of any existing contract or agreement between the respondent and the contractors. No claim shall be made by the contractors against the respondent for premature termination of their contracts in respect of the contract labourers. (V) The benefit of absorption shall not be extended, to contract labourers who in terms of this Court s order referred to above have taken voluntary retirement on payment of the retrenchment compensation. No claim shall be made by the contractors against the respondent for premature termination of their contracts in respect of the contract labourers. (V) The benefit of absorption shall not be extended, to contract labourers who in terms of this Court s order referred to above have taken voluntary retirement on payment of the retrenchment compensation. (VI) The respondent shall be at liberty to retrench workmen so absorbed, in accordance with law. This order shall not be pleaded as a bar to such retrenchment. (VII) If there is any dispute in respect of the identification of the contract labourers to be absorbed as directed above, such dispute shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), on material, produced before him by the parties concerned. (VIII) This direction shall be operative only in respect of 142 jobs out of 246 jobs, in view of the fact that contract labour has already been abolished in 104 jobs. (IX) This order does not relate to the persons who have already been absorbed. (X) The persons, who had been retrenched, but in terms of the directions of this Court, have been taken back, shall also be entitled to the benefit of this order. If there is any dispute in respect of the identity of such persons, that shall also be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central ). (XI) For the purpose of calculating the payment of retrenchment benefit in the event of their retrenchment, hereafter, the 10 years period aforesaid shall be counted, in respect such retrenched persons, although they are absorbed after the passing of this order. (XII) This order shall be complied with by the respondent within four months from today. 10. The writ application is allowed accordingly. " ( 3 ) AS per the directions of the Supreme Court, the concerned Labour Commissioner looked into the matter and the workers, who satisfied the requirements as per prescribed rules by the Supreme Court, were taken into service as regular employee. That judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court on the 10th of December, 1995. ( 4 ) IN July, 1994, IA. That judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court on the 10th of December, 1995. ( 4 ) IN July, 1994, IA. 9/94 praying for the following reliefs was filed:- "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to clarify: (a) That the respondents be directed to regularise the services of all the workmen working in any of the 246 jobs at the time of filing of this writ petition and continuously working since then; (b) clarify that the standards of medical fitness to be applied in these case of these workman should be the standards used for regular workmen for their retrenchment; (c) clarify that this judgment dated 12. 5. 94 would also apply to those workman who had been retrenched in 1990 and 1992 and have not yet been taken back in employment; (d) direct the respondents to pay wages to those 292 workmen who were kept out of employment for the period 22. 5. 89 to 30. 11. 89, contrary to the orders of this Court. " ( 5 ) ON the 16th of September, 1994, the Supreme Court passed the following orders:- "prayers (a) and (b) are not pressed by Mr. Shanti Bhushan and he states that his clients may pursue any other remedy available to them under law. Regarding prayers (c) and (d), we clarify that if any of the workmen is not absorbed/regularised despite this Court s directions/orders, we give liberty to the workman concerned to pursue any other remedy or approach any other authority prescribed under law. We express no opinion on merit. " ( 6 ) THE Steel Authority of India received about 5,340 applications for regularisation from the workmen. Out of these 5,340 workmen, 2,677 workmen were found eligible for absorption. The rest of the workmen, i. e. , 2,663 workmen, were referred to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) for consideration. ( 7 ) THE Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi issued notices to the petitioner association and also the unions involved in the matter. The Chief Labour Commissioner held elaborate enquiry and on the basis of materials produced before him, came to the conclusion that 360 workmen were eligible for absorption. ( 8 ) ON the 31st of January, 1995, the petitioner, association, filed a review petition before the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central ). The Chief Labour Commissioner held elaborate enquiry and on the basis of materials produced before him, came to the conclusion that 360 workmen were eligible for absorption. ( 8 ) ON the 31st of January, 1995, the petitioner, association, filed a review petition before the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central ). He considered the matter again and found 523 workmen eligible for absorption and he had given reasons therefor. The Steel Authority of India, in obedience of the order passed by the Supreme Court, had absorbed the workmen. ( 9 ) NOT being satisfied with these, IA. 10/95 was filed before the Supreme Court on the 24th July, 1995 praying for the following reliefs:- "it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may be graciously pleased to: (a) direct the respondents to take back those 1800 and odd workmen who had been illegally retrenched by the respondents on 10. 4. 95 and not to retrench them until there is a need for retrenchment on the ground of surplusage of labour: (b) direct that all those workmen who had completed 10 years of service by 10. 4. 1995 would be eligible for regularisation. " ( 10 ) ON the 16th of October, 1995 when the matter came up before the Supreme Court, the petitioners therein sought leave to withdraw the petition. The Supreme Court passed the following order:- "the applicant may, if so advised, seek a reference of any fresh alleged dispute which has arisen between the workmen and the management or approach the authority in accordance with law. The IA is dismissed as withdrawn. " ( 11 ) IN spite of the categorical order passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner, association, has filed the present writ petition claiming the same reliefs. ( 12 ) MR. PRASHANT Bhushan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, association, submitted that the Labour Commissioner had not considered the materials placed before him and the Labour Commissioner had not acted in accordance with directions given by the Supreme Court. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the record submitted by the petitioner would conclusively establish the case of the workmen and the Labour Commissioner should be directed to reconsider the matter. ( 13 ) MR. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the record submitted by the petitioner would conclusively establish the case of the workmen and the Labour Commissioner should be directed to reconsider the matter. ( 13 ) MR. HANSARIA, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) directed the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner to examine the documents and the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner had given a detailed report, wherein he had noticed a number of infirmities in the documents filed and he had also found interpolations in the documents filed by the workmen. ( 14 ) SITTING under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I do not want to go into factual position. The Supreme Court had directed the workmen to raise a dispute, if they so desire. The petitioner, association, cannot file a writ petition and on this ground, the writ petition is dismissed. ( 15 ) THERE shall be no orders as to costs. ( 16 ) IT shall be open to the petitioner, association, to raise an industrial dispute whereafter the Industrial Tribunal would consider the documents that may be filed by the workmen. .