ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 884 of 2016 has been filed by the original respondent No. 1 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8660 of 2016 with Special Civil Application No. 9440 of 2016, whereas Letters Patent Appeal No. 942 of 2016 has been filed by the original petitioner against the same order passed in the aforesaid petitions. Thus, the issue involved in both these appeals and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is common, both these appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. Original petitioner-Union filed the petition being Special Civil Application No. 8660 of 2016 in which it was the case of the petitioner that Sheth G.K. General Hospital was set up in the year 1956 at Bhuj with a donation of Rs.5 lacs. In the year 2001, the entire hospital had collapsed. The Central Government released fund to the tune of Rs.100 crores from Prime Minister's Relief Fund for the purpose of rebuilding and modernization of the said Hospital. On 31.03.2003, new building of Sheth G.K. General Hospital, Bhuj came to be inaugurated and on 27.08.2003, a society called G.K. General Hospital Society came to be formed and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government took a decision to give the assets of G.K. General Hospital to Adani group and therefore a resolution dated 27.05.2009 came to be passed and thereby the land of City Survey No. 1053 of Bhuj admeasuring 814288.84 sq. mtrs. owned and possessed by Health & Family Welfare Department was given to Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science on lease for a period of 99 years. The said Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science was registered as society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and thereafter the State Government decided to take back the management of G.K. General Hospital from G.K. General Hospital Society. 4. It is alleged that there fare about 150 persons working for more than 10 years with the then G.K General Hospital Society and now with Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science. 4. It is alleged that there fare about 150 persons working for more than 10 years with the then G.K General Hospital Society and now with Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science. Those employees are paid below the minimum rate of wages and no other benefits were given to them and therefore they raised a demand by approaching the Management claiming certain benefits. However, no such benefits were granted and therefore petitioner approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gandhidham-Kutch who has fixed the hearing on 26.05.2016 and thereafter on 30.05.2016 Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science also filed its reply. In the aforesaid background, when the Assistant Labour Commissioner has not taken any decision, petitioner filed the aforesaid petition before this Court wherein the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs: (A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No. 2 to immediately refer the dispute raised by the petitioner union to the Industrial Tribunal, for adjudication; (B) That Your Lordships be further pleased to declare the impugned action of the respondent in deploying contract labour on permanent, perennial nature of job, as serious unfair labour practice and be further pleased to declare the impugned action of dispensing with the services of the workman under the garb of termination of the Contractor, as illegal and amounting to unfair labour practice; (C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondent, their agent and servants from terminating and/or otherwise discontinuing the services of the workmen on the ground of termination of Contractor;” 5. At this stage, it is relevant to note that the same petitioner filed another petition with the same prayer as some of the workers were left out in the first petition. The learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 19.08.2016 not entertained the petitions. However, while dismissing the petitions, learned Single Judge directed the original respondent No. 2 Conciliation Officer to finalize the conciliation proceedings pending before him and to make appropriate report to the concerned authority of the State Government within stipulated time limit. Learned Single Judge further directed that the workers covered in the first petition viz. However, while dismissing the petitions, learned Single Judge directed the original respondent No. 2 Conciliation Officer to finalize the conciliation proceedings pending before him and to make appropriate report to the concerned authority of the State Government within stipulated time limit. Learned Single Judge further directed that the workers covered in the first petition viz. Special Civil Application No. 8660 of 2016 shall continue to be employed in the hospital till the Conciliation Officer finalize the conciliation proceedings and make appropriate report to the concerned authority of the State Government and till the expiry of 15 days from the date the State Government takes decision on the report of the Conciliation Officer. The learned Single Judge further observed that such protection shall also stand extended to the workers covered under the second petition if they are in employment as on the date of passing of the order with the hospital. 6. Thus, the original respondent No. 1-Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science filed this appeal No. 884 of 2006 against granting protection by the learned Single Judge till the State Government takes decision on the report of the Conciliation Officer, whereas the original petitioner-Union filed Letters Patent No. 942 of 2016 against the dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. K.M. Patel associated by learned advocate Mr. V.K. Patel for Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science and learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra for the Union in both the appeals. 8. Learned counsel Mr. Patel submitted that though the learned Single Judge has not entertained the petitions, while dismissing the same, extended the interim relief during conciliation proceedings and 15 days from the date when the State Government takes decision to make reference or not which is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Patel thereafter submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the conduct of the original petitioner which raised the demand only when the work order was given to new contractor on 26.04.2016 and raised the dispute by approaching the Conciliation Officer only on 09.05.2016 when the new contractor took over the work. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Patel thereafter submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the conduct of the original petitioner which raised the demand only when the work order was given to new contractor on 26.04.2016 and raised the dispute by approaching the Conciliation Officer only on 09.05.2016 when the new contractor took over the work. It is submitted that the petitioner-Union and its members were aware about the fact that the services of the concerned workmen were co-terminus with the life of the contract of their employer which was coming to an end on 31.05.2016 Hence, looking to the conduct of the petitioner-Union in belatedly raising the dispute and filing the petition seeking interim protection against termination of service did not deserve to be granted. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further contended that the concerned workmen for whom the interim protection against the termination was granted by the learned Single Judge are appointed by the independent labour contractor in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and therefore there was no employer employee relationship between the employer and the concerned workmen. At this stage, it is pointed out that the said labour contractor was not joined as party before the learned Single Judge. Hence, when the appellant-original respondent No. 1 has not appointed the concerned workmen, the appellant has no authority to terminate the services of the concerned workmen. 11. Learned counsel thereafter submitted that the affidavit-in-reply was filed by the original respondent - present appellant wherein it was pointed out that work of housekeeping and hospital attendant is outsourced to contractors since July 2013 and more than half of the concerned workmen have not even worked for 3 years with different contractors. It is submitted that though learned Single Judge has not entertained the petitions, the interim relief was extended which is not permissible and therefore the impugned order be set aside to the extent of extension of interim relief granted in favour of the Union. 12. Learned counsel Mr. It is submitted that though learned Single Judge has not entertained the petitions, the interim relief was extended which is not permissible and therefore the impugned order be set aside to the extent of extension of interim relief granted in favour of the Union. 12. Learned counsel Mr. Patel has further submitted that new contractor has taken over the charge on 09.05.2016, whereas the term of the old contractor is over on 30.05.2016 and therefore if the interim protection granted by the learned Single Judge is continued, the appellant original respondent No. 1 is required to pay the wages of two sets of employees out of which one set of employees are not performing any work after the contract is over on 30.05.2016 13. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his submissions: (1) Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437 . (2) The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, reported in AIR 1952 SC 12 . (3) G.E. Power Controls India v. S. Lakshmipathy, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 509 . (4) Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. General Employees Association, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 273 . 14. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra appearing for the Union- original petitioner submitted that workers whose names are reflected in the list annexed with the petition are the workers of the respondent No. 1-Hospital and working for last more than 10 years and even before the management of the hospital was handed over to the respondent No. 1 by the State Government such workers were working in the hospital. It is contended that though the work being performed by the workers is of permanent and perennial nature, they have been made to work under different contractors under sham and bogus contract just to deprive them of their legitimate right to be treated as permanent workmen and therefore the petitioner-Union served notice of demand to the respondent No. 1 to treat such workers as permanent employees of the hospital and to give them all the benefits and for such demands conciliation proceedings before the respondent No. 2 are pending. 15. 15. It is further contended that though it is the case of clear industrial dispute for the demands made by the petitioner-Union for the workers, the Conciliation Officer is not finalizing the conciliation proceedings which will result into delay in referring the industrial dispute to the industrial forum. It is submitted that pending the conciliation proceedings and till the reference is made to the industrial forum, if the services of the workers are discontinued they will suffer great prejudice and therefore the learned Single Judge has though dismissed the petitions, extended the interim relief in favour of the workers and thereby learned Single Judge has not committed any error. 16. Learned counsel Mr. Mishra thereafter submitted that learned Single Judge has committed an error in not going into the merits of the case and by not entertaining the petitions filed by the petitioner-Union and only direction is given to the Conciliation Officer to submit the report to the concerned authority of the State Government. He, therefore, requested that the appeal filed by him be allowed and the appeal filed by the original respondent No. 1 - Hospital be dismissed. 17. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Mishra has placed reliance upon the following decisions: (1) Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.12.1996 in C.A.J.C.A. No. 15535 of 1996 and allied matters. (2) All India General Mazdoor Trade Union v. Delhi Administration, reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 579. 18. We have considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties and also gone through the material produced on record. 19. It emerges from the record that the petitioner had prayed in the petition that direction be given to respondent No. 2 Conciliation Officer to immediately refer the dispute raised by the petitioner-Union to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication and during the pendency of the petition, it was prayed that respondent No. 1 be restrained from terminating and/or discontinuing the services of the workmen on the ground of termination of contractor. Learned Single Judge, on one hand observed that in the facts of the case the Court is not considering the prayers made in the petition by going into the merits of the case and therefore the learned Single Judge has not discussed the judgments relied on by original respondent No. 1 and on the other hand, the interim relief granted was extended, as observed hereinabove. Therefore, the question which is required to be considered in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge is right in continuing the interim relief while not entertaining the petition. 20. In the case of Kalabharti Advertising (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 22 as under: “22. It is a settled legal proposition that the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. (Vide: State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 ; Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1305 ; State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685 ; State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh "Balak" AIR 1966 SC 1441 and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke, AIR 1975 SC 2238 ).” 21. In the case of Madan Gopal Rungta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 6 as under: “6. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such orders under article 226 under the circumstances of the case. This is not a case where the Court before finally disposing of a petition under article 226 gave directions in the nature of interim relief for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. The question which we have to determine is whether directions in the nature of interim relief only could be granted under article 226, when the Court expressly stated that it refrained from determining the rights of the parties on which a writ of mandamus or directions of a like nature could be issued. The question which we have to determine is whether directions in the nature of interim relief only could be granted under article 226, when the Court expressly stated that it refrained from determining the rights of the parties on which a writ of mandamus or directions of a like nature could be issued. In our opinion, article 226 cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief on the application as the High Court has purported to do. The directions have been given here only to circumvent the provisions of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, and in our opinion that is not within the scope of article 226. An interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or proceeding. If the Court was of opinion that there was no other convenient or adequate remedy open to the petitioners, it might have proceeded to investigate the case on its merits and come to a decision as to whether the petitioners succeeded in establishing that there was an infringement of any of their legal rights which entitled them to a writ of mandamus or any other directions of a like nature; and pending such determination it might have made a suitable interim order for maintaining the status quo ante. But when the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not, for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions, under article 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the language of article 226 does not permit such an action. On that short ground the judgment of the Orissa High Court under appeal cannot be upheld.” 22. In the case of G.E Power Controls India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 7 and 8 as under: “7. The reasoning of the High Court is contradictory to say the least. On that short ground the judgment of the Orissa High Court under appeal cannot be upheld.” 22. In the case of G.E Power Controls India (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 7 and 8 as under: “7. The reasoning of the High Court is contradictory to say the least. If the High Court had held that it was unable to grant relief in respect of orders of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution, it certainly was not in a position to adjudicate upon or grant relief in respect of orders of termination of service or abandonment of the service as the case may be. This is settled law and has been clearly laid down in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta. In this case, the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties under Article 226 of the Constitution relating to removal of assets from mining areas. The High Court, however, granted interim relief by injuncting the State of Orissa from disturbing the possession of the writ petitioners over the mining areas for a period of one week after the institution of the suit which, according to the High Court, was the more appropriate remedy. This is what this Court said: (SCR p.35) “But when the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not, for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions, under Article 226 of the Constitution.” 8. In view of this, the direction of the High Court as quoted above, is set aside. However, no dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act has been raised by the respondent employees because of the pending litigation before this Court. We accordingly extend the time within which the industrial disputes may be raised within a period of four weeks from today and the time within which the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court must dispose of the reference is correspondingly extended. All points on merits raised by the respective parties in this petition on merit will be open for decision by the forum concerned.” 23. All points on merits raised by the respective parties in this petition on merit will be open for decision by the forum concerned.” 23. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the forum of the writ Court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. 24. Thus, in the present case, when the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that respondent No. 2-Conciliation Officer is required to finalize the conciliation proceedings pending before him and to make appropriate report to the concerned authority of the State Government, learned Single Judge ought not to have directed that the workers covered in the petitions shall continue to be employed in the hospital till the report is submitted to the concerned authority of the State Government and till the expiry of 15 days from the date the State Government takes decision on the report of the Conciliation Officer. 25. Moreover, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation (supra) as well as All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (supra) relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Mishra. However, in view of the aforesaid discussions and the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalabharti Advertising (supra) and Madan Gopal Rungta (supra), we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge has committed an error in continuing the interim relief while not entertaining the petition. 26. The appeal filed by the Union is not required to be entertained as learned Single Judge has considered the relief prayed for by the Union by directing the respondent No. 2 - Conciliation Officer to finalize the conciliation proceedings pending before him and to make appropriate report to the concerned authority of the State Government as required by Section 12 of the Act within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. We are informed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that during the pendency of these appeals, the Conciliation Officer has already submitted failure report to the concerned authority of the State Government and now the State Government will take decision on the basis of the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer. 27. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeal No. 884 of 2016 filed by the original respondent No. 1 is allowed, whereas Letters Patent Appeal No. 942 of 2016 filed by the original petitioner is dismissed. 28. In view of the disposal of the main Letters Patent Appeal, civil applications do not survive and accordingly they are disposed of.