Judgment 1. The appellants are the writ petitioners before the learned single Judge. The writ petition has been filed by the appellants seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing respondents 1 and 2 from bringing in/engaging contract labour either through TEXCO or through any other contractor, employing any other person to do security work in the second respondent corporation, which the petitioners are doing and direct the respondents to implement the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, dated 26.05.1999 in I.D.No.66 of 1991 by regularising the services of the Security Workers concerned in the I.D.No.66 of 1991 which has been confirmed by this Court, pay them arrears and all other attendant benefits. 2. Facts in Brief:- 2.1. An award was passed in I.D. No. 66 of 1991 on 26.05.1999 by regularising the services of the workman belonging to the Union of the first appellant as per the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981. A challenge was made to the award passed by the respondents by way of filing writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.1846 of 2000. The learned single judge has confirmed the award passed in I.D. No. 66 of 1991 by an order dated 04.01.2011. Not satisfied with the decision rendered by the learned single Judge, the respondents filed an appeal in W.A. No.1006 of 2011. A Division Bench of this Court, in turn, dismissed the writ appeal on 11.08.2011. The respondent took the matter on appeal before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.5532 of 2012. The Supreme Court, by an order dated 04.04.2012, has passed the following order:- "In the meanwhile the status quo with regard to the service condition of the respondents shall be maintained." 2.2. Initially, the secured section of Cauvery Asset of the respondents had 280 Term Based Security Personnel. Due to the non fulfilment of the required personnel, subsequently, the number was reduced to 139. In those circumstance and also in view of the security threat as well as sensitive nature of the industry, a decision was made to temporarily fill up the required posts on a contract basis. Being aggrieved against the said decision, the appellants approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.30040 of 2011. The learned single Judge, by an order dated 17.04.2014, has dismissed the writ petition in the following manner. "10. Being aggrieved against the said decision, the appellants approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.30040 of 2011. The learned single Judge, by an order dated 17.04.2014, has dismissed the writ petition in the following manner. "10. A mere reading of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly shows that status quo with regard to the service conditions of the workmen covered by the dispute was directed to be maintained by the parties. Moreover, when the subject matter of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, followed by the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.1846 of 2000 dated 4.1.2011 and W.A.No.1006 of 2011 dated 11.8.2011, has been seized of by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the pending S.L.P.(C) No.5532 of 2012, the prayer made in the present writ petition seeking to forbear the respondents from engaging any contract labourers through TEXCO on the ground that the workmen would be put to great hardship and irreparable loss and would affect the service conditions of the workmen as envisaged under Section 9-A(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently to implement the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 26.5.99 in I.D.No.66 of 1991, cannot be either appreciated or acceded to by this Court, as this Court cannot render the pending special leave petition to become infructuous. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondents, the general secretary of Petroleum Coal Labour Union has not filed the present writ petition, in whose favour the award was passed. Although in the counter affidavit the respondents had stated that the security guards required as on today is 301, but the available term based guards are only 142 and there is a shortfall of 159, this Court cannot go into the said issue as well, since the entire matter has been now seized by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and it is for the parties to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court seeking appropriate relief. At the risk of repetition, it may be mentioned that when the service conditions of the workmen covered in the I.D.No.66 of 1991 dated 26.5.99 have been safely protected by the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the pending S.L.P.(C) No.5532 of 2012, it is beyond the imagination of the petitioners to contend that the service conditions of the said workmen are going to be affected by any act of the respondents in engaging the additional contract labourers, as the respondents cannot avoid the risk of facing the consequences before the Hon'ble Apex Court." 3. Submissions of the Appellants:- Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondents are trying to do what they cannot do directly by an indirect method. The appellants, who are the members of the first respondent Union, are putting up their extra efforts by working over time. The employees if appointed, though on a contractual basis, would get more salary than the members of the first appellant-Union. Therefore, there is no necessity to appoint employees on a contract basis since the existing employees are willing to work over time. As the date has already been fixed for the hearing and final disposal of the case on 18.11.2014, the status quo as of today will have to be maintained. Being a profitable organisation, the respondents will have to show an element of fairness in their action by making higher payment as salary. 4. Submissions of the Respondents:- Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that there is an increasing necessity to strengthen the security of the industry. Considering the vulnerability of the oil installations, specific warning had been given by various Governmental Agencies to enhance the security measures. In order to ensure the safety, appropriate measures will have to be made to strengthen the security. For that purpose, adequate personnel will have to be deployed. There is no bar for engaging contract Labourer through any source, preferably, through contractor general of resettlement sponsoring agency. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India, has also decided not to prohibit contract labourers in certain fields of service in the respondents-Corporation. The security will have to be tightened in the national interest. The appellants would not be prejudiced in any manner by the engagement of security personnel on contract basis. Therefore, no interference is required. 5. DISCUSSION:- 5.1. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India, has also decided not to prohibit contract labourers in certain fields of service in the respondents-Corporation. The security will have to be tightened in the national interest. The appellants would not be prejudiced in any manner by the engagement of security personnel on contract basis. Therefore, no interference is required. 5. DISCUSSION:- 5.1. What is pending before the Supreme Court is the issue of regularisation pertaining to the Members of the first Appellant. Therefore, the issue of making appointment to the vacant posts, that too, on a contractual basis, has got no connection with the other issue which is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. The appellants cannot be said to be aggrieved against the proposed decision of the respondents. Even assuming the appointments are made through contractual basis, the salary of the members of the first appellant would not change. 5.2. Now coming to the overtime, it cannot be insisted that the employees, who are willing, will have to be made to do overtime work. The engagement of an employee on overtime basis is an exception. The working hours of the employees are governed by the Factories Act. Therefore, it is not open to the appellants to contend that by the proposed action, their members would lose the overtime money and therefore, it should be stopped. On the contrary, there is no right vested with the employees to seek to work over time. 5.3. There is no dispute on the requirement and need for deployment of additional employees. The requirement is also imminent. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has produced number of documents pertaining to the Intelligence input. On a perusal of the said documents, it is clear that the decision made by the respondents is borne out of a necessity and therefore, the same cannot be found fault with. It is the duty of the respondents to take adequate measures to protect the corporation against a possible threat or attack in its own interest as well as that of the nation. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants cannot seek, as a matter of right, that the respondents will have to be prevented from discharging their public duty. As discussed above, we do not find any legal injury that would be caused to the appellants by the proposed decision taken by the respondents. 5.4. Mr. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants cannot seek, as a matter of right, that the respondents will have to be prevented from discharging their public duty. As discussed above, we do not find any legal injury that would be caused to the appellants by the proposed decision taken by the respondents. 5.4. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for appellants submitted that the respondents will have to show fairness in their action. We do not wish to say anything on that submission and we leave the said issue to the respondents to decide. With the above observations, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.