JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the Security Personnel Combine, a Voluntary Association of Security Staff engaged in the Refinery Division of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL in short) at Paradip Refinery Project, being represented by its President Shri Niranjan Sethi, with a prayer to quash letter No. SSS/GEN/18/08 dated 14.05.2008, Annexure-4, by which the Proprietor of Speed Smart Security Services, O.P. No. 2, informed all the Guards and Supervisor engaged by him in the Refinery Division of IOCL at Paradip that their last date of duty would be 13.6.2008 till 08.00 hrs. since the security service contract awarded by O.P. No. 2 has been terminated by the O.P. No. 1 by the letter issued on 14.05.2008. The aforesaid letter in Annexure-4 was issued under the signature of Cdr. S.N. Mohanty, the Proprietor of Speed Smart Security Services, O.P. No. 2. 2. The facts leading to this writ petition briefly stated are that the President of the Petitioner-Security Personnel Combine, namely, Niranjan Sethi and 17 other ex servicemen were empanelled as security personnel by the Director General of Resettlement (DGR) in the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India and under the Scheme framed by the D.G.R., the aforesaid ex servicemen were engaged by O.P. No. 1 since 2000 in its security service manned by different security service agencies including O.P. No. 2-Speed Smart Security Services, for round the clock surveillance of the Site Office, Guest House, Transit Camps and such other locations as required by O.P. No. 1. According to the Petitioner, the services of the security personnel were controlled by O.P. No. 1, but manned by Security Service Agencies. Pursuant to the tender notice dated 09.10.2006 issued by O.P. No. 1 for providing security service, O.P. No. 2 was awarded with the work and accordingly O.P, No. 2 by letter dated 30.10.2007 furnished the list of names of 18 security personnel, who are the members of the Security Personnel Combine, to perform the duty with effect from 01.11.12007 vide Annexure-1. According to the Petitioner, they were getting wages as per the schedule rate of minimum wages revised by the Govt. of India from time to time. 3. According to the Petitioner, they were getting wages as per the schedule rate of minimum wages revised by the Govt. of India from time to time. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of O.P. No. 1, it has been stated that the Government of India in the Department of Public Enterprises by Office Memorandum dated 1.2.1994 instructed all the Central Government Public Sector Undertakings to take security cover from Security Agencies sponsored by the D.G.R. and as per the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India in the Department of Public Enterprises, O.P. No. 1 by agreement dated 31.10.2007 awarded the security contract for round the clock surveillance of Paradip Refinery Project Site Office and Transit Camps of IOCL to O.P. No. 2-Speed Smart Security Services, an ex servicemen security agency, which was a sponsored agency of the DGR, for a period of one year with effect from 1.11.2007 vide Annexure-B/1. In terms of the said contract, O.P. No. 2 provided names of 18 security personnel to perform the duty. O.P. No. 1 has further stated that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the O.P No. 1-IOCL and the security guards engaged by O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 2 is the employer of the security guards. As per the contract, on submission of bills along with attendance sheets and proof of payment of P.F. and E.S.I. contributions, etc. by O.P No. 2? Security Agency, payment is released in favour of such Security Agency including payment towards EPF and ESI as per the statute as well as the guidelines issued by D.G.R. and the agency O.P. No. 2 in its turn deposits the EPF & ESI amounts along with contribution of the security guards with the appropriate authority through separate challan. When O.P. No. 2 by orders dated 1.5.2008, vide Annexure-D/1 series, transferred two of its security guards, namely Pramod Kumar Pal and Gokul Charan Biswal, from the Paradip Refinery Project, the security guards protested against such orders of transfer and enmasse did not report to duty on 5.5.2008 (night shift) and abandoned the locations without any intimation to O.P. No. 1 because of which the locations remained unmanned and exposed to security risks and hazard. The whole situation was explained to the contractor-security agency by O.P. No. 1 by letter dated 6.5.2008 with a request to look into the matter and fulfill the contractual obligations vide Annexure-E/1. This matter was brought to the notice of the Security Agency and despite request to O.P. No. 2, the security guards did not report to duty on 6.5.2008 morning shift except at one or two places. Thereafter the guards did not report to duty at any place and deserted all the locations completely. The security guards returned to duty on 8.5.2008 at 08.00 hrs. On 13.5.2008 O.P No. 1 received a letter signed by 15 Security Guards addressed to IIC, Paradip Police Station, with copy thereof to E.D., Paradip Refinery Project, levelling false charges against an officer of the IOCL. According to O.P. No. 1, as the security guards provided by the agency failed to maintain discipline amongst the guards and extend security coverage at the specified locations, which remained unmanned continuously for more than two days the O.P No. 1 issued a letter dated 14.5.2008 to O.P. No. 2 intimating that the management has lost confidence in the Security Agency and therefore, in terms of Clauses 10.1 and 10.4 of the Terms and Conditions of the Security Service Contract, the contract was terminated with effect from 13.6.2008 (morning shift). It was further stated in the said notice that the letter may be treated as one month's notice for withdrawal of security services. 4. With the aforesaid background of facts, let us first examine whether the reliefs sought for by the Petitioner against the O.P. No. 1-IOCL can be granted in this writ petition. Our answer would be in the negative because neither O.P. No. 1-IOCL had employed the security guards nor any contract had been entered into between them. The contract was executed between O.P. No. 1-IOCL and O.P. No. 2-security agency which though terminated has not been challenged before us. The security guards being the recruits of O.P. No. 2-security agency have no right to claim any relief against the IOCL. That apart, this being a contractual matter and as the contract entered into between the security agency and the IOCL has already been terminated, this Court cannot interfere with the same in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, this being a contractual matter and as the contract entered into between the security agency and the IOCL has already been terminated, this Court cannot interfere with the same in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner has, therefore, no cause of action to file this writ petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his case relied upon certain decisions of the apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. K.V. Shramik Sangh and Others. Since the aforesaid decisions are under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, those are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable at the behest of the Petitioner. Final Result : Dismissed