JUDGMENT : Mr. Subodh Abhyankar, J. 1. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by this Hon'ble Court vide order dt 11.07.2016 passed in writ petition No.21131/2015. The Court passed the following order:- "11.07.2016: 2. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is filed taking exception to the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Labour Court dismissing an application filed by the Union under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Act"). 3. Facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are in narrow compass that the petitioner is a trade union has approached the Labour Court under Section 33 of the Act seeking interim relief of the nature of continuance contract of service of its members doing the work of Meter Readers in the respondents establishment, on the premise that the dispute as regards claim of regularization of such persons have been raised before the Conciliation Officer and therefore, till the conciliation proceedings are culminated, there should not be change in service conditions of such Meter Readers. As according to the petitioner, the contract of Meter Readers of one year shall come to an end from December, 2015. 4. The Labour Court while dealing with the aforesaid application has concluded that there is no evidence on record as regards employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondents Electricity Board. There is no terms and conditions of the employment on record violation whereof could said to be change in service conditions, therefore, the complaint of change of service conditions cannot be acceded to under Section 33 of the Act. Accordingly, the application has been rejected. 5. Taking exception to the order passed by the Labour Court, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once a dispute has been raised before the Conciliation Officer in the matter of employment of Meter Readers and for their regularization and the same having been ceased for conciliation, the respondents employer cannot be permitted to change the service conditions as non-renewal of the contract of such persons doing the work of Meter Readers shall tantamount to change in service conditions. Since the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the concept of conditions of service in the context of labour jurisprudence, therefore, there is a apparent jurisdictional error committed by the Labour Court while rejecting the application filed under Section 33 of the Act. 6. Per contra Shri Sharad Punj learned counsel for the respondents Electricity Board has made following submissions : 1. In the respondents establishment there is no post1. of Meter Reader. 2. The work of Meter Readering is carried out by the individuals on independent contract executed between the individual and the respondents. 3. In absence of any post of Meter Reader, the 3. question of any lien on the post does not arise. Further more there is no terms and conditions prescribed providing for any service conditions for such Meter Readers. 4. Engagements are on contract basis, which is for a 4. specified period subject to renewal. 7. Under such circumstances, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner is an employee of the respondents Electricity Board and there is a change in service conditions of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the claim allegedly made by the Union before the Conciliation Officer is of that the continuous work of Meter Readers (claim for regularization), this by itself does not give any right to the petitioner to claim continuity as if they are the employees of Madhya Pradesh Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Ltd. Learned counsel for the respondents also contends that the relief of regularization or that of employment is of the individual nature and such relief cannot be addressed at the instance of the Union as there is no element of community interest involved in the aforesaid dispute raised before the Conciliation Officer. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel contends that Section 33 of the Act has no application to the case in hand. Therefore, the Labour Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error while rejecting the application vide impugned order dated 30.11.2015. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in writ petition No.8739/2015 decided on 17.06.2016 and bunch of writ petitions in writ petition No.21994/2015 decided on 01.07.2016 and contended that this Court has dismissed the writ petitions where under the claim was made to continue to work as Meter Readers in the respondents establishment. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in opinion of this Court, as on date there is no final adjudication upon the dispute as regards the claim for regularization. The dispute is at primitive stage pending conciliation before the Conciliation Officer. Admittedly, there is no document on record either demonstrating the post of Meter Readers in the respondents establishment against which the members of petitioner are working, no terms and conditions of Meter Readers are provided for and there is no regular pay-scale for the said work. In absence whereof, the claim for protection against the change of service conditions under Section 33 of the Act, in the opinion of this Court, is far fetched and not in consonance with the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. Though, the members of petitioner are doing the work of Meter Readers on contract basis on fixed remuneration over years, however, at this stage, it cannot be said that the members of the petitioner are employees of respondents establishment for which protection under Section 33 of the Act can be acceded to as on date. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, this Court finds no illegality or jurisdictional error interfering in the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Labour Court dismissing the application under Section 33 of the Act warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition sans merit. 8. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order passed by the Division Bench in writ petition No.1110 of 2009 Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Meter Vachak Sangh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and submits that this Court may consider for providing interim protection for continuance of contract of work of Meter Reader. 9. As the petitioner has already approached the Labour Court, no such direction can be given. However, the petitioner be set at liberty to approach the respondents for continuance/extension of contract of work as Meter Readers as per the requirements. The prayer appears to be reasonable and therefore, it is directed that the aforesaid prayer on individual case to case basis may be considered subject to availability of the work and if the individual has not disqualified himself under the law for engagement on contract as Meter Reader. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed." 11. The prayer appears to be reasonable and therefore, it is directed that the aforesaid prayer on individual case to case basis may be considered subject to availability of the work and if the individual has not disqualified himself under the law for engagement on contract as Meter Reader. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed." 11. In this view of the matter, this petition is also dismissed. No order as to the costs.