JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. By order dated 26th August, 2015 the Supreme Court while deciding interim applications in writ petition as also contempt petition, passed following order: “Looking at the facts of the case and in view of the fact that disputed questions of fact are involved in this case, we direct that the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Lucknow shall look into the grievances of the applicants, if a representation is made to him by any of the applicants before this Court within 10 weeks from today. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Lucknow Shall Look in to the grievances which might be ventilated before him in the representation and shall pass an appropriate order after considering the facts of the case within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation made before him. With the above observations and directions, the interlocutory application is disposed of. CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 406 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 433 OF 1998 AND CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 240 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 433 OF 1998. Looking at the facts of the contempt petitions, we find that no case for contempt is made out. The contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.” 2. It is submitted that the order dated 26th August, 2015 was modified by the Supreme Court subsequently on 11.09.2015 directing the Regional Labour Commissioner Lucknow, instead of Assistant Labour Commissioner, to look into the grievances. 3. In terms of the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the Supreme Court, the Regional Labour Commissioner has to pass an appropriate order in compliance of the order dated 26.08.2015, after considering the facts of the case on the representation made before him. The Regional Labour Commissioner, Lucknow, submitted a report on 2.12.2015 in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court holding therein that a Railway Administration of North Western Railway, Jaipur, has already absorbed some of the parcel porters in different Divisions of Indian Railways except Jaipur Division in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After discussing the facts it came to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to absorption on regular basis at Jaipur Division, North Western Railway. 4. After discussing the facts it came to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to absorption on regular basis at Jaipur Division, North Western Railway. 4. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the said report/order dated 02.12.2015 submitted by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, before this Bench at Jaipur of the Rajasthan High Court, and prayer has been made therein that the same be quashed and set aside. 5. It has been argued on merits as well as on jurisdiction that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, did not have the jurisdiction to pass such a report/order. At the time of preliminary hearing of the writ petition before the Co-ordinate Bench on 4.12.16, following order was passed: “It is stated that without having territorial jurisdiction, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow has passed the order for absorption of parcel porters working in Jaipur. Issue notice. In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order dated 2.12.2015 is stayed.” 6. Today the case has come up on vacation of the said interim order dated 04.02.2016 pointing out that the writ petition was not maintainable as the report/order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner Lucknow was in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court in contempt petition as well as in application filed in writ petition and this Court does not have jurisdiction to examine the report, which has been directed to be prepared by the Apex Court. It has been pointed out that the Rajasthan High Court would not have any jurisdiction once the Supreme Court directed the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, to decide the representation and submit a report thereto. If any person had any grievance against the said report, the only remedy available was to raise the objections before the Apex Court. Moreover, argument to the effect that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow did not have territorial jurisdiction, was misleading as the Apex Court had directed the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, to decide the representation and therefore it did not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to challenge the order on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 7. Moreover, argument to the effect that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow did not have territorial jurisdiction, was misleading as the Apex Court had directed the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, to decide the representation and therefore it did not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to challenge the order on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who stated that the jurisdiction point was with regard to the issue of deciding the representation and not with regard to territorial jurisdiction and the said aspect has erroneously been considered in the interim order passed by this Court dated 4th February, 2016. It is submitted that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, could not have declared entitlement of the parcel porters for absorption and the same could only been done by the concerned Labour Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I find that the writ petition preferred by the Railways challenging the order/report submitted by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, was only misleading and misconceived. An attempt has been made to overreach the process of the Court. It may be noted that the Supreme Court while deciding the contempt petition had left the matter and adopted a method to get the matter sorted out finally by directing the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow to decide the representation and pass an appropriate order as is reflected from the order pass by the Apex Court (supra). 9. The writ petition is all misconceived as it has been preferred in Rajasthan High Court while the order was passed in terms of the directions of the Apex Court by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow, and in the opinion of this Court it is nothing but a bench hunting which cannot be appreciated by this Court and it is strongly deprecated. Officers of the Railways are expected to be responsible and should follow the rule of law. 10. Having stated that, I do not think it proper to further comment on the manner in which present writ petition has been filed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on that ground of it being a attempt to overreach the process of the Court and directions of the Apex Court. Costs of Rs.1 lakh is imposed on the railways for filing frivolous writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on that ground of it being a attempt to overreach the process of the Court and directions of the Apex Court. Costs of Rs.1 lakh is imposed on the railways for filing frivolous writ petition. Cost to be paid to the respondents equally.