JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioners seek a direction upon the respondents to regularise and permanently absorb their services as regular employees of respondent No. 2, Steel Authority of Indiain-Bokaro Steel Plant and further to allow them the same wages and other benefits which the other employees are getting. 3. Petitioners case is that they have been continuously working for more than 20 years although they were appointed under labour contract. Their case is that after change of contractor, the new contractor engaged the same labourers including the petitioners for the execution of the work and in this way they have been continuously working through contractor for the last several years. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 to 6 in which it is stated, inter alia, that for the same relief the petitioners through Union moved the Supreme Court by filing civil writ petition being writ petition (c) No. 173/99. The said writ petition was filed in a representative capacity by several labourers including these writ petitioners. The Supreme Court refused to entertain the writ application on the ground that the question of abolition of contract labour was under consideration before the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the matter is still sub-judice before the Advisory Board. 5. Curiously enough, the petitioners have not disclosed in this writ application that they filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court in representative capacity being writ petition (c) No. 173/99 which was dismissed as premature. 6. Mr. Tara Kishore Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on questioned, firstly submitted that the present writ petitioners are not the petitioners in the writ petition filed before the Supreme Court and secondly, that the issue raised before the Supreme Court was totally different from the issue raised in this writ application. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Prasad. From a perusal of the copy of the Supreme Courts order and the list of the workman on whose behalf the writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court, it appears that these petitioners were also the parties in the said writ petition before the Supreme Court. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Prasad. From a perusal of the copy of the Supreme Courts order and the list of the workman on whose behalf the writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court, it appears that these petitioners were also the parties in the said writ petition before the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter the petitioners ought to have disclosed in the instant writ application the fact that they approached the Supreme Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition No. 173/99. 7. Besides the above, in the instant writ application the petitioners have admitted that they have been, continuously working on the basis of labour contract under the Contractor. However, their case is that at some intervals even when there was no contractor, work was taken by the respondents time to time and after appointment of contract labours they continued to work under the contractor. 8. Be that as it may, when the petitioners did not get any relief from the Supreme Court because of the pendency of the matter before the Advisory Board, they have filed the instant writ application by suppressing the aforesaid fact. 9. For the reasons aforesaid this writ application is dismissed. 10. Application dismissed.