JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of present writ petition, petitioner-Union has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allot residential quarters/ accommodation to the petitioner's members to live on the principle of parity as the respondents have allotted accommodation to various other agencies and persons such as; Pujari, Contractors, Photographers, private Companies, Army, Security, Societies, private School (DPS) and ITI certificate holder apprentices etc., but the petitioner's members who are working since long for various types of maintenance works of the respondents despite their various requests are being discriminated.” 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Union registered with the Himachal Pradesh Government Labour Department, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, (for short, the Act), having its Registration No. 1255, in the name and style “Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Contract Workers Union” (for short 'Union'). Copy of registration certificate has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. 3. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-Union through Narender Singh, son of Shri Shiv Ram, who claimed himself to be the General Secretary of the Petitioner-Union. It is averred that respondents have sufficient number of buildings, out of which some have been put to use for the offices and in some of the buildings, accommodation has been allotted to various agencies/persons, such as, Pujari, Contractors, Photographers, private Companies, Army, Security, Societies, private School (DPS) etc., and since the members of the petitioner-Union are also working for the respondents, they may also be provided residential accommodation in the buildings which are lying vacant. Petitioner-Union specifically stated that its members belong to different parts of the country, have been working in various capacities with the respondents and at present are facing number of problems including non-availability of residences. Accordingly, the petitioner-Union submitted a Demand Charter dated 12.02.2015 to the respondents (Annexure P-2), whereby, respondents were informed with regard to genuine demand of the members of the Union, but of no avail. Petitioner has procured information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act'), (Annexure P-3), suggestive of the fact that respondents were having sufficient vacant accommodation available. Perusal of aforesaid information further reveals that respondents have allotted residential/commercial accommodation to various persons/agencies, which have no direct concern with the respondents. Petitioner has procured information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act'), (Annexure P-3), suggestive of the fact that respondents were having sufficient vacant accommodation available. Perusal of aforesaid information further reveals that respondents have allotted residential/commercial accommodation to various persons/agencies, which have no direct concern with the respondents. Petitioner-Union has also placed on record Quarter Allotment Order, dated 1.4.2016, to demonstrate that respondents have also provided accommodation to number of ITI Certificate holders who came only for a period of one year. 4. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner-Union is that since its members are working hard on meager wages for the benefit of respondents through the contractors, it is the primary duty of the respondents to provide accommodation to the poor members of the petitioner-Union. It has also been stated that due to non-availability of shelter, the members of the petitioner-Union are facing a lot of problems and respondents, despite having sufficient vacant accommodation, are not providing the same to them. 5. As noted above, since no action whatsoever was taken on the Demand Charter submitted by petitioner-Union, it was compelled to pass a Resolution dated 02.04.2016, to the following effect: “Unanimously resolved that about 200 residential quarters are lying vacant with the respondents, but despite having knowledge that the petitioner's members are facing problems for their shelter, the same are not being allotted to petitioner's members, hence, the petitioner's members knocked the door of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.” 6. Since, the respondents failed to provide residential accommodation to the members of the petitioner-Union, hence the present writ petition. 7. Respondents, by way of detailed reply, refuted the claim of the petitioner-Union by stating that there is no privity of contract between the replying respondents and the petitioner-Union, inasmuch as the members of the petitioner-Union are engaged by the contractors, to whom the contract is awarded by the replying respondents for a specific period and it is the responsibility of the contractor and not of the respondents to provide accommodation to the workers employed by the contractors. With a view to substantiate aforesaid assertion, replying respondents also placed on record Annexure-RA i.e. agreement entered into between the Contractor and the respondents, which suggests that the respondents are not at all obligated to allot any kind of accommodation to the workers of the contractor and it is the responsibility of the contractor. With a view to substantiate aforesaid assertion, replying respondents also placed on record Annexure-RA i.e. agreement entered into between the Contractor and the respondents, which suggests that the respondents are not at all obligated to allot any kind of accommodation to the workers of the contractor and it is the responsibility of the contractor. Respondents have also stated that as per Rules framed by replying respondents called as “SJVNL Allotment of Residential Accommodation Rules” (for short, the Allotment Rules), (Annexure-RB), there is no provision for providing accommodation to the workers engaged by the contractor. 8. Respondents also sought dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioner-Union has already invoked the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It has also been stated that pursuant to demand notice dated 26.4.2016, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandigarh issued a notice to the replying respondents to appear for conciliation on 08.06.2016. It has also been stated by respondents that members of the petitioner-Union being workers of the contractor do not have any right, whatsoever, to claim accommodation from respondents because all the contracts are for specific period for just one or maximum two years based on open e-tender basis and replying respondents being principal employer has to ensure that the contractors are not violating the provisions of any labour law. Apart from above, respondents sought dismissal of the present writ petition on the ground that all the contractors to whom the contract is awarded by the replying respondents are already paying HRA @ 10% of the minimum wages to all the workers, as such, any plea of providing accommodation is not sustainable and same deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 10. Bare perusal of the documents made available on record by the respective parties, clearly suggests that members of the petitioner-Union are not employees of the respondents in any manner and they have been engaged by the contractors, who have been awarded contract by the respondents for execution of various works under Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (for short, SJVNL). It also emerges from the record that respondents have constructed sufficient accommodation for its employees as well as for other agencies, who are rendering essential services to the respondents. 11. It also emerges from the record that respondents have constructed sufficient accommodation for its employees as well as for other agencies, who are rendering essential services to the respondents. 11. In the aforesaid background, this Court needs to ascertain whether members of the petitioner-Union are entitled to accommodation owned by the respondents, especially, when it stands proved on record that they have been engaged by the contractor and not by the respondents. It is an admitted case of the parties that members of the petitioner-Union have been engaged for execution of work by contractors and not by the respondents. Otherwise also, perusal of averments contained in writ petition, nowhere suggests that petitioner-Union has raised any legal grounds, which could make them entitled for allotment, if any, of the accommodation as has been referred to above. Rather plain reading of averments itself suggests that accommodation is being claimed on the basis of parity by the petitioner-Union for its members. 12. Here we may make a reference to Clause 3.0 of the Allotment Rules (Annexure-RB), which reads as under:- “3.0 Eligibility for Allotment of Accommodation: 3.1 All employees, except the local employees, will be eligible for allotment of residential accommodation in the township provided that if an employee is under suspension pending enquiry, he will not be eligible for allotment of any accommodation during the period of suspension. 3.2 If husband and wife are both employees of the Company and working at the same place, only one of them whosoever gets first allotment will be eligible for allotment. 3.3 If one of the spouse is employed by another government/Semi-Government Organization/Autonomous Bodies or Public Sector Undertaking and has been allotted residential accommodation from his/her employer in the same place, he/she shall not be eligible for allotment of accommodation by the Company. 3.4 If father or mother and unmarried son and/or daughter are both employed by the Company and are working at the same station, then only one of them will be eligible for allotment. 3.5 Normally bachelors will be allotted shared accommodation. 3.6 An employee who is permitted to the retention of his family accommodation in a place other than the place of posting as per separate rules will be allotted bachelor/shared accommodation only subject to the terms and conditions in force from time to time.” 13. 3.5 Normally bachelors will be allotted shared accommodation. 3.6 An employee who is permitted to the retention of his family accommodation in a place other than the place of posting as per separate rules will be allotted bachelor/shared accommodation only subject to the terms and conditions in force from time to time.” 13. From the above Clause of the Allotment Rules, it is clear that accommodation, if any, can be allotted to the employees of SJVNL. Word ‘Employee’ has been defined in Clause 2.0 of the Allotment Rules, which reads as under:- “2.0 Definition: c) 'Employee' means a person appointed against a regular post and includes probationers and deputationists, but excludes Trainees, Apprentices, temporary, casual, Muster Roll, workcharged employees.” 14. Careful perusal of Clause 2.0 of the Allotment Rules referred to above suggests that under the Allotment Rules, 'Employee' means a person appointed against regular post and includes probationers and deputationists, but excludes Trainees, Apprentices, temporary, casual, Muster Roll, workcharged employee, meaning thereby, person appointed against regular post, on probation and deputationists would be deemed as an employee for the purpose of aforesaid Rules. Bare perusal of aforesaid criteria as has been prescribed in the Rules, nowhere suggests for allotment of accommodation in favour of the workers engaged by contractors to whom work is awarded by the respondents in open tender. 15. Hence, in view of the aforesaid Allotment Rules, members of the petitioner-Union are not entitled for allotment of any residential accommodation by the respondents and, as such, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the respondents are not under any obligation to provide accommodation to the members of the petitioner-Union. 16. Apart from the above, this Court also perused the agreement entered into between the respondents and the contractor, namely M/s Hem Power Corporation, which nowhere suggests that the respondents are under obligation to provide accommodation, if any, to the workers engaged by the contractors for the construction of project. 17. This Court is of the view that availability of vacant accommodation, if any, with the respondents cannot be a sole ground for providing accommodation to the members of the petitioner-Union, who are admittedly not the employees of the respondents in terms of the Allotment Rules and, as such, no illegality can be found with the action of the respondents in denying accommodation to the members of the petitioner-Union. Since, members of petitioner-Union have no locus and right to claim accommodation from the respondents, any plea of discrimination made on behalf of petitioner-Union deserves to be rejected outrightly. However, perusal of paragraph 4 of the reply filed by respondents clearly suggests that security agencies like CISF, HIMPESCO and Himachal Pradesh Police deployed at the site are very vital agencies for the safety and security of the project and accordingly their employees have been provided accommodation in terms of the contract entered into between the respondents and the Agencies, referred to here-in-above. 18. Similarly, employees of DPS school, which has been set-up for the wards of the employees of the respondents, have been rightly provided accommodation in terms of agreement entered into between the respondents and the Management of School. 19. After perusing various agreements having been placed on record by the respondents, this Court has no reason to conclude that the respondents have discriminated the members of the petitioner-Union viz. a viz. various agencies in not allotting residential accommodation. It would be appropriate to reproduce para 4 of the reply filed by the respondents hereunder: “4. That the averments made in this para of the petition so far they pertain to record, those are not disputed and the averments which are contrary to the record, those are specifically repudiated. It is submitted on behalf of the replying respondent that project of the replying respondent is fetching revenue to the State and Central Government and is a pride of the Nation. The security agencies like CISF, HIMPESCO and Himachal Pradesh Police deployed at the site are very vital agencies for the safety and security of prime project and employees working therein. As per terms and conditions of the contract with these agencies, the replying respondents are responsible and liable to provide accommodation to the employees of these agencies deployed for the safety and security of the projects. A copy of the agreement with the CISF is annexed as Annexure RD for the perusal of the Hon'ble Court. Similarly, the setting up of DPS school has proved a boon not only to the wards of the employees of the replying respondents but also to the public at large of the area. A copy of the agreement with the CISF is annexed as Annexure RD for the perusal of the Hon'ble Court. Similarly, the setting up of DPS school has proved a boon not only to the wards of the employees of the replying respondents but also to the public at large of the area. Therefore, as per terms and conditions of the agreement with the management of the DPS school, the replying respondents are responsible and liable to provide accommodation to the school staff at the project site. A copy of the Agreement with the School is annexed as Annexure RE. It is a fact that some residential accommodation has been provided to the army authorities at Jhakri as per the Rules of SJVNL. It is admitted that zero Type single room set have been provided to one contractor namely M/s Wang Gaar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for office purpose only. Similarly, one zero type single room set has been provided to contractor M/s Jagdeep Aneja Paschim Vihar, New Delhi taking into consideration the specialized services being provided by the contractor for the smooth running of the project and the specialized services are not available at project site. It is also admitted that zero type accommodation has been allotted to contractor M/s Kingson Studio (photographer) as per terms and conditions of the contract between the parties, copy whereof is annexed herewith as Annexure RF. It is further admitted that residential accommodation has been allotted to the Pujaris deployed in the temples of the project vicinity keeping in view the demand of majority of the employees and the local residents of the area. Therefore, keeping in view the fact there is no justification on the part of the members of the petitioner to claim allotment of residential accommodation, more particularly, when the terms and conditions of the contract agreement with the contractor do not envisage such situation whereby the members of the petitioner can claim any such allotment of residential accommodation. It is submitted that keeping in view the above stated facts and circumstances, the demand of residential accommodation raised by the petitioner being against the terms and conditions of the contract agreement with the contractor, was rightly not considered by the replying respondents.” 20. It is submitted that keeping in view the above stated facts and circumstances, the demand of residential accommodation raised by the petitioner being against the terms and conditions of the contract agreement with the contractor, was rightly not considered by the replying respondents.” 20. As far as, another contention put-forth by the counsel representing the petitioner-Union with regard to violation of provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, Act of 1970) is concerned, it would be apt to reproduce here-in-below Section 17 of the said Act:- “17. Rest-rooms. - (1) In every place wherein contract labour is required to halt at night in connection with the work of an establishment – (a) to which this Act applies, and (b) in which work requiring employment of contract labour is likely to continue for such period as may be prescribed, there shall be provided and maintained by the contractor for the use of the contract labour such number of rest-rooms or such other suitable alternative accommodation within such time as may be prescribed. (2) The rest-rooms or the alternative accommodation to be provided under sub-section (1) shall be sufficiently lighted and ventilated and shall be maintained in a clean and comfortable condition. 21. Perusal of aforesaid provisions clearly shows that contractor is required to provide and maintain rest-rooms in every place, where labour is required to halt at night in connection with work of establishment. The aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1970 relied upon by petitioner-Union, nowhere binds the respondents to provide accommodation to the members of petitioner-Union, who were admittedly engaged by the contractor. 22. Rule 41 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (for short, Rules of 1971) is also reproduced here-in-below:- “41. Rest Rooms.-(1) In every place wherein contract labour is required to halt at night in connection with the working of the establishment to which the Act applies and in which employment of contract labour is likely to continue for 3 months or more, the contractor shall provide and maintain rest rooms or other suitable alternative accommodation within fifteen days of the coming into force of the rules in the case of existing establishments, and within fifteen days of the commencement of the employment of contract labour in new establishments. (2) If the amenity referred to in sub-rule (1) is not provided by the contractor within the period prescribed the principal employer shall provide the same within a period of fifteen days of the expiry of the period laid down in the said sub-rule. (3) Separate rooms shall be provided for women employees. (4) Effective and suitable provision shall be made in every room for securing and maintaining adequate ventilation by the circulation of fresh air and there shall also be provided and maintained sufficient and suitable natural or artificial lighting. (5) The rest-room or rooms or other suitable alternative accommodation shall be of such dimensions so as to provide at least a floor area 1.1 sq. metre for each person making use of the rest room. (6) The rest-room or rooms or other suitable alternative accommodation shall be so constructed as to afford adequate protection against heat, wind, rain and shall have smooth, hard and impervious floor surface. (7) The rest-room or other suitable alternative accommodation shall be at a convenient distance from the establishment and shall have adequate supply of wholesome drinking water.” 23. Perusal of aforesaid provisions also suggests that contractor shall provide and maintain rest-room or other suitable alternative accommodation to the contract labour where the labour is required to halt at night in connection with the work of establishment to which Act of 1970 applies. Sub-clause 2 of Rule 41 of the Rules of 1971 though suggests that, in case, contractor fails to provide amenity in terms of sub-rule 1, principal employer shall provide the same within fifteen days of the expiry of the period laid down in the said Rules. But in the present case, as has been discussed in detail, there is no privity of contract between the replying respondents and petitioner-Union. Moreover, members of petitioner-Union have been engaged by contractor to whom the contract is awarded by the replying respondents for a specific period and agreement entered into between the respondents and contractor, nowhere suggests that respondents are under obligation to provide accommodation, if any, to the members of the petitioner-Union. Moreover, as has been discussed in detail, the Allotment Rules nowhere entitle the members of the petitioner-Union to claim accommodation, which otherwise is available to the employees of the respondents. 24. Moreover, as has been discussed in detail, the Allotment Rules nowhere entitle the members of the petitioner-Union to claim accommodation, which otherwise is available to the employees of the respondents. 24. Otherwise also, there is no document on record suggestive of the fact that at any point of time members of the petitioner-Union raised their claim for accommodation, if any, with the contractor, who engaged them. Even for the sake of argument, it is presumed that the respondents being principal employer is under obligation to provide accommodation to the employees engaged by the contractor, the petitioner-Union ought to have placed on record communication, if any, made by petitioner-Union or its members with the contractor, asking him to provide accommodation in terms of provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1970 and the Rules of 1971. But in the present case, we are unable to find any document which could persuade us to infer that at first instance members of the petitioner-Union raised their claim for accommodation, if any, with the contractor and as such no benefit can be claimed by the members of petitioner-Union in terms of aforesaid Act of 1970 and the Rules framed thereunder, from the respondents. 25. Even if it is presumed that the respondents being principal employer are under obligation to provide accommodation to the workers engaged by the contractor in terms of the Rule 41 of the Rules of 1971, referred to here-in-above, there is no document available on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner represented to the contractor who engaged them, for making available accommodation in terms of provisions/rules of the aforesaid Act. In terms of Section 17 of the aforesaid Act as well as Rule 40 of Rules referred here-in-above, principal employer is only bound to provide accommodation, if at the first instance contractor fails to provide the same to its workers. Interestingly, in the present case, petitioner-Union has neither represented to contractor who engaged its members for construction work nor placed on record any document suggestive of the fact that its request for providing accommodation was not acceded to by the contractor and as such the petitioner-Union was compelled to make representation to the respondents, praying therein for providing accommodation. Interestingly, in the present case, petitioner-Union has neither represented to contractor who engaged its members for construction work nor placed on record any document suggestive of the fact that its request for providing accommodation was not acceded to by the contractor and as such the petitioner-Union was compelled to make representation to the respondents, praying therein for providing accommodation. Hence, we are unable to accept the aforesaid contention put-forth on behalf of petitioner-Union that the respondents being principal employer are under obligation to provide accommodation to the employees engaged by the contractor. 26. Sections 22, 24 & 25 of the Act of 1970 provide for punishment for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act which are reproduced below:- “22. Obstructions (1) Whoever obstructs an inspector in the discharge of his duties under this Act or refuses or willfully neglects to afford the inspector any reasonable facility for making any inspection, examination, inquiry or investigation authorized by or under this Act in relation to an establishment to which, or a contractor to whom, this Act applies, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. (2) Whoever willfully refuses to produce on the demand of an inspector any register or other document kept in pursuance of this Act or prevents or attempts to prevent or does anything which he has reason to believe is likely to prevent any person from appearing before or being examined by an inspector acting in pursuance of his duties under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 24. Other offences If any person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder for which no other penalty is elsewhere provided, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 25. 24. Other offences If any person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder for which no other penalty is elsewhere provided, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 25. Offences by companies (1) If the person committing an offence under this Act is a company, the company as well as every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of the offence shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: PROVIDED that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or that the commission of the offence is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, managing agent or any other officer of the company, such director, manager, managing agent or such other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation : For the purpose of this section- (a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. 27. Sections 26 & 27 of the Act of 1970 also provide that no court shall take cognizance of any offence except on a complaint made by, or with the previous sanction and no court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under the said Act. Sections 26 & 27 of the Act of 1970 read thus:- “26. Sections 26 & 27 of the Act of 1970 read thus:- “26. Cognizance of offences No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, the inspector and no court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act. 27. Limitation of prosecutions No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act unless the complaint thereof is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an inspector: PROVIDED that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an inspector, complaint, thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.” 28. In the present case, as has been observed above, petitioner-Union has not been able to demonstrate that at any point of time prior to filing of their claim before the respondents, it had raised the issue of accommodation with contractor. 29. In view of the specific provisions contained in the Act of 1970, as referred to here-in-above, the present petition is not maintainable. 30. Interestingly, in the present case, petitioner-Union has not arrayed respective contractors as party respondents, who are otherwise under obligation to make accommodation available to their workers in terms of the aforesaid Act of 1970 and the Rules of 1971. Bare perusal of averments contained in the writ petition itself suggests that present petition is sheer abuse of the process of law because at no point of time, petitioner has been able to prove its locus as well as right to claim accommodation, if any, from the respondents. 31. Apart from the above, petitioner-Union has miserably failed to prove its locus as far as filing of the present petition is concerned because as has been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment, no resolution whatsoever, authorising Mr. Narender Singh, General Secretary of the petitioner-Union, has been placed on record to file the present writ petition and as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability. 32. We were inclined to dismiss this petition with cost, however, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we refrain from doing so. 33. 32. We were inclined to dismiss this petition with cost, however, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we refrain from doing so. 33. Having glance of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly alongwith pending CMPs, if any.