ORDER: The petitioners, claiming that they are contract labourers, engaged by the contractors to render service to the respondent/ principal employer, made representations on 2.7.2001, requesting the respondent to regularise their service and absorb and confer permanent status on them, as per the ratio laid down in Air India v. United Labour Union, 1993 Lab.I.C.1277, which was upheld by the Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 645. As no orders were passed on the representations dated 2.7.2001, the petitioners seek for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the representations of the petitioners dated 2.7.2001 and absorb the petitioners on regular basis by applying the ratio laid down in 1993 Lab.I.C. 1277 (Bom.), which was upheld by the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 645 and in the meanwhile not to terminate the services of the petitioners till the disposal of the representations dated 2.7.2001. 2. I am unable to appreciate the claim of the petitioners, based on the decision in Air India v. United Labour Union, 1993 Lab.I.C. 1277 (Bom.), which was upheld by the Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 645, as the above decisions were reversed by a Five Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6009 and 6010 of 2001, by order dated 30.8.2001 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers), holding that there is nothing in the Act providing for automatic absorption of such contract workers and that whether there was valid contract with the Labour Contractor and there was direct relationship of master and servant between them has to be determined and therefore, the court can lift the veil to look into the true fact to determine this question. It is pointed that simply because the workmen were in employment through a Labour Contractor on the date of notification under Sec.10(1) does not bind the management to absorb them permanently in service automatically. It is pointed that simply because the workmen were in employment through a Labour Contractor on the date of notification under Sec.10(1) does not bind the management to absorb them permanently in service automatically. The Apex Court in SAIL case has further framed the following consequences of issuing the notification under Sec.10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act: (1) contract Labour working in the concerned establishment at the time of issue of notification will cease to function; (2) the contract of principal employer with the contractor in regard to the contract labour comes to an end; (3) no contract labour can be employed by the principal employer in any process, operation or other work in the establishment to which the notification relates at any time thereafter; (4) the contract labour is not rendered unemployed as is generally assumed but continues in the employment of the contractors as the notification does not sever the relationship of master and servant between the contractor and the contract labour; (5) if the contractor can utilise the services of the contract labour in any other establishment in respect of which no notification under Sec.10(1) has been issued where all the benefits under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, which were being enjoyed by it, will be available; (6) if a contractor intends to retrench his contract labour he can do so only in conformity with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act; and held that the contract labour cannot be treated as direct workman of the principal employer in every case automatically. 3. Hence, it is a suffice to direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners dated 2.7.2001, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. National Union Water Front Workers within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then, the respondent shall not terminate the service of the petitioners, if they are otherwise not terminated till date. 4. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos.23761 to 23767 of 2001 are closed.