Judgment 1. The petitioners, 19 in number, are working in the 1st respondent – M/s. Misra Dathu Nigam Limited, a Government of India Enterprise. It is not in dispute that they were initially engaged by a contractor by name M/s. Agnes Utility for the purpose of the Aeronautical Material Testing Laboratory (AMTL) established and being maintained by the 1st respondent. However, pursuant to a Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.6.2001 entered into between the petitioners and the management of the 1st respondent, the petitioners were taken by the 1st respondent on contract basis for AMTL. It is also not in dispute that the 1st respondent has been paying the pay and allowances to the petitioners on par with its employees of the corresponding category at the induction level. Accordingly the petitioners were also issued appointment orders dated 18.8.2001 engaging them as contract employees of the 1st respondent in the pay scale fixed therein and as on today they are continuing as such. 2. While so the 2nd respondent – Deputy Commissioner of Labour – who was nominated as the Verification Officer/Returning Officer to conduct secret ballot election for recognition of majority union in the 1st respondent as per the Code of Discipline, proposed to hold the elections on 24.6.2010. For the said purpose the voters list with 764 voters was finalized in the meeting held on 16.6.2010. However the names of the 19 petitioners herein were not included in the said voters list. 3. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not permitting the petitioners to participate in the secret ballot election scheduled on 24.6.2010 for recognition of the majority union operating in the 1st respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 4. It is contended in the writ petition that that as the petitioners had put up 17 years of service and as per the appointment order dated 18.8.2001 as well as the Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.6.2001 they were treated as contract employees of the 1st respondent, there is absolutely no justifiable reason in depriving them the right to vote. 5. It is contended in the writ petition that that as the petitioners had put up 17 years of service and as per the appointment order dated 18.8.2001 as well as the Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.6.2001 they were treated as contract employees of the 1st respondent, there is absolutely no justifiable reason in depriving them the right to vote. 5. The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), a Department in the Ministry of Defence entered into a contract with the 1st respondent for operation and maintenance of AMTL for the Kaveri Engine being developed by Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) for carrying out testing services and the tenure of existing contract would expire on 31.01.2013. As per the contract, the DRDO shall meet all the expenditure connected with the running and maintenance of AMTL including salary of the workmen employed at AMTL. The petitioners who were engaged on contract basis specifically for AMTL were not included in the muster rolls of the 1st respondent as their services are co-terminus with the contract awarded to the 1st respondent. Thus it is contended that AMTL is not a part of the 1st respondent’s organisation and the petitioners are also not in regular employment of the 1st respondent. It is also stated that the petitioners are not covered by any of the tripartite/bipartite settlements made with the recognised unions of the 1st respondent and that similar claim made by the petitioners that they were entitled to participate in the trade union elections conducted in the year 2005 was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 1.10.2005 on the ground that AMTL was a separate establishment and not linked to the 1st respondent. The petitioners were also not allowed to participate in the elections held in the year 2008 and W.P.No.674 of 2008 filed by them was dismissed by order dated 1.9.2008. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, it is stated that the petitioners had never participated in the elections held to the Trade Unions operating in the 1st respondent. It is contended that the writ petition itself was not maintainable as the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings dated 16.6.2010. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, it is stated that the petitioners had never participated in the elections held to the Trade Unions operating in the 1st respondent. It is contended that the writ petition itself was not maintainable as the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings dated 16.6.2010. It is also contended that by virtue of the Settlement dated 26.6.2001 under which the petitioners agreed to continue with the 1st respondent on contractual basis for AMTL, the petitioners themselves had given up their right for regularization of their services and therefore it was rightly held that they were not entitled to participate in the secret ballot. 7. The 6th respondent Union filed a counter-affidavit stating that they had no objection for inclusion of the writ petitioners as already expressed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in the meeting held on 16.6.2010. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen, under the Memorandum of Settlement, dated 26.6.2001, it was agreed that the petitioners should be deemed to be the contract workers of the AMTL which was under a contract with the 1st respondent and that the petitioners had nothing to do with the 1st respondent. It was also clearly understood by both the parties to the Settlement that the petitioners were offered contract employment specifically in the AMTL and they had nothing to do with the main plant of the 1st respondent. It was also agreed that the petitioners would continue to be the contract workers of the 1st respondent so long as AMTL was entrusted to the 1st respondent for its operation and working on contract. It was also made clear that once the AMTL ceased to be under contract with the 1st respondent, the petitioners would be retrenched and neither the 1st respondent nor DRDO / GTRE should have any liability towards them. The same terms and conditions have been reiterated in the 1st respondent’s letter dated 18.8.2001 under which the petitioners were engaged as contract employees for giving effect to the Settlement dated 26.6.2001. 9. Thus it is clear that the petitioners are not regular employees of the 1st respondent and therefore in the draft voters list the names of the petitioners were not included. 9. Thus it is clear that the petitioners are not regular employees of the 1st respondent and therefore in the draft voters list the names of the petitioners were not included. In the meeting held on 16.6.2010 the 2nd respondent, having considered the objections raised by the 3rd respondent Union as well as the management (1st respondent), had rightly disallowed the claim of the petitioners to participate in the elections and accordingly approved the final voters list with 764 voters. 10. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court in PANYAM CEMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION AFFILIATED TO INTUC v. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND OTHERS ( 2004 (2) ALT 122 ) and I. SRINIVASA RAO AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, HYDERABAD ( 2010 (3) ALD 139 ) contended that the denial of the petitioners to participate in the verification process amounts to unfair labour practice. 11. At the outset, it is to be noticed that in both the above said decisions this Court was considering the entitlement of badli workers to participate in the election, whereas in the present case the petitioners are contract workers engaged only for the purpose of AMTL which does not form part of the 1st respondent. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 contended that the petitioners herein, who are admittedly working on contract basis cannot be placed on par with the badli workers who work during the absence of the regular employees and are treated for all purposes as regular employees of the organisation and therefore the decisions cited by the leaned counsel for the petitioners are clearly distinguishable. 13. In the above decisions, a finding was recorded by this Court that Badli worker was a worker within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and accordingly it was held that the Badli workers were entitled to be the member of the Trade Union. Thus it was concluded in the above decisions that the action of the respondents therein in denying the badli workers from participating in verification process by not including their names in the voters list amounted to unfair labour practice. 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3, this is a case where the petitioners are admittedly working as contract workers. 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3, this is a case where the petitioners are admittedly working as contract workers. Their work is confined only to AMTL and their salary and other expenditure is reimbursed by GTRE with whom the 1st respondent entered into memorandum of understanding. Their services are also coterminus with the contract awarded to the 1st respondent. The petitioners who are admittedly signatories to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.6.2001 are bound by the terms and conditions agreed upon and it is not open to them now to contend that they are the regular employees of the 1st respondent. Hence the ratio laid down in the two decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the case on hand. 15. Though the respondents 4 to 6 unions who had supported the claim of the petitioners contended before the 2nd respondent that in view of Section 14 of the A.P. Industrial Workers (Representation, Participation in Management and Relief) Act, 1998 (for short, ’the Act), the petitioners were entitled to participate in the election, and the said contention was opposed by the 1st respondent management relying upon the proviso to Section 14, according to which such of those contract labour who have been exclusively engaged by the industrial establishment in the essential economic activity of such establishment alone shall be eligible to vote, it is not disputed before this Court by the parties that the said Act has not come into force so far. In the circumstances, the reference to Section 14 of the Act in the minutes of the meeting dated 16.6.2010 is totally irrelevant and it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on the said issue. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Needless to mention that the interim order dated 23.6.2010 in WPMP.No.17947 of 2010 shall stand vacated. No costs.