SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the petitioners praying that respondents may be restrained from dispensing with the services of the petitioners and not to appoint new workers in their place. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-"grant status quo or a restraint order, restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners till the disposal of the writ petition or such time till the grievance/ industrial dispute of the petitioners are finally adjudicated;" ( 2 ) IT is alleged by the petitioners that petitioners were engaged by the contractor to work for the respondent no. 1 through respondent No. 2 and 3. They were employed through respondent No. 4. I cards were issued by respondent No. 3 as contractor labour employees. The work being done by the petitioners was of perennial nature. The contract was camouflage so as to defeat the claim of the petitioners as permanent employee on permanent roll of respondent No. 3. Petitioners are desirous to challenge their engagement through contractor. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to seek injunction as prayed so that they are secure till they raise dispute and dispute is decided. ( 3 ) I consider that the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioners have not approached this court for enforcement of any legal right. So long as the contact labour is not prohibited by appropriate government, respondent No. 2 and 3 have a legal right to engage respondent No. 4 for providing security services. Merely because petitioners consider that a notification under section 10c C. L. R. A. was necessary, it cannot approach this Court and obtain an injunction against respondents No. 2 and 3 who have admittedly not violated any legal right of the petitioners. In Secretary of State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others 2006 (4) SCALE 197 Supreme Court held:"during the course of the arguments, various orders of courts either interim or final were brought to our notice. The purport of those orders more or less was the issue of directions for continuation or absorption without referring to the legal position obtaining. The purport of those orders more or less was the issue of directions for continuation or absorption without referring to the legal position obtaining. Learned counsel for the State of Karnataka submitted that chaos has been created by such orders without reference to legal principles and it is time that this Court settled the law once for all so that in case the court finds that such orders should not be made, the courts, especially, the High Courts would be precluded from issuing such directions or passing such orders. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents based on the various orders passed by the High Court or by the Government pursuant to the directions of Court also highlights the need for settling the law by this court. The bypassing of the constitutional scheme cannot be perpetuated by the passing of orders without dealing with and deciding the validity of such orders on the touchstone of constitutionality. (para 13 ). . . . . . . . . . . When the court is approached for relief by way of a writ, the court has necessarily to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. Considered in the light of the very clear constitutional scheme, it cannot be said that the employees have been able toe establish a legal right they have never been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. " ( 4 ) I consider that the court cannot issue an interim injunction directing the respondent No. 2, 3 or 4 to continue the services of the petitioners. If the petitioners are terminated, the petitioners can avail remedy available under law. ( 5 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have raised disputed question of facts viz the work performed by the petitioners was of a perennial nature or not and whether a notification as envisaged under Section 10 of contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, should be issued by the government or not. I consider that this court in writ jurisdiction cannot go into disputed question of facts and only an industrial adjudicator can go into the disputed question of facts. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.