ORDER : S.M. Subramaniam, J. 1. The relief sought for in respect of W.P.Nos.8208 & 5294 of 2018 are to call for the records of the 4th respondent in connection with the impugned Tender Notification dated 23.02.2018 and 17.11.2017 published in the Dinamani News Paper and the Indian Express News Paper, Coimbatore edition so far as it relate to the Food Storage Depot Peelamedu of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to refer the Industrial dispute regarding transfer of workers from the Food Storage Depot, Peelamedu to the competent Industrial Tribunal the same and the relief sought for in respect W.P.No.31629 of 2017 is to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the Impugned Tender Notification dated 17.11.2017 for handling of Labour Contract published in Dinamani and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against law. The relief sought for in respect of W.P.No.30169 of 2017 is to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in pursuant to the Impugned Notice in No. DPS/PLMD/ESTT/R(2)/2017-18/2795 dated 03.11.2017 and quash the same and the relief sought for in respect of W.P.No.5848 of 2018 is to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the Impugned Tender Notification dated 23.02.2018 for handling of Labour Contract in Peelamedu Depot Published in Dinamani and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against law. 2. W.M.P.No.7186 of 2018 in W.P.No.5848 of 2018 has been filed for an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the publication of the impugned Tender Notification dated 23.02.2018 for handling of Labour Contract in Peelamedu Depot published in Dinamani by the second respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, at the first instance, made a submission that the impugned Tender Notification dated 23.02.2018 has been issued pursuant to the Notification issued by the Government of India on 06.07.2016, granting exemption from the provisions of the Contract Labour [Abolition and Regulation] Act, 1970. The said Notification was issued strictly by the Government of India as per the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Nagpur, Mumbai High Court, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners further contended that the Government of India has extended the exemption only for a period of two years. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners further contended that the Government of India has extended the exemption only for a period of two years. Thus, the period of exemption granted is going to expire on 05.07.2018. Thus, eight more days are left out from today and therefore, the Notification will became lapsed, unless it is extended for further time. 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners further contended that the petitioner/Labour Union consist of several members, who all are working as Labourer under the Direct Payment System under the control of Food Corporation of India. Their grievances are that, they are likely to be transferred on account of new recruitment. Thus, they will be affected in the event of such transfers. This apart, the Management of the Food Corporation of India, directed these labourers to submit their willingness letter to go on transfers. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised an apprehension by stating that in the event of inviting tenders and appointing new labourers, the existing labourers are likely to be transferred to some other Depot. 6. This Court is of an opinion that recruitment of new labourers based on the needs of the Corporation is a policy decision taken by the Management. Even in case of new recruitment, the petitioner's Union cannot have any legal right to contest the same in view of the fact that the petitioner's Union has got a right to protect the service conditions and other rights of the members of their Union and they have no locus standi to interfere with the policy decision taken by the Food Corporation of India to appoint new labourers or other employees for the purpose of expansion or for the purpose of effective implementation of the scheme of the Food Corporation of India. Thus, the service conditions of the members of the Petitioner's Union is one aspect of the matter and inviting tenders from the contractors for recruitment of new labourers is another aspect of the matter. Both are not interlinked and separate. Thus, the service conditions of the members of the Petitioner's Union is one aspect of the matter and inviting tenders from the contractors for recruitment of new labourers is another aspect of the matter. Both are not interlinked and separate. Thus, if any service conditions of the members of the petitioner's Union is violated or if any member of the petitioner's Union aggrieved from and out of the decision or an order passed against such labourers, then alone they are at liberty to approach the competent Court of Law for the purpose of adjudicating the issues and to redress their grievances. 7. By challenging the Tender Notification issued by the Management of the Food Corporation of India, the labourers or their Union cannot file a writ petition. The "locus standi" of the writ petitioner's Union to challenge the policy is also questioned by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. 8. Thus, this Court is of an undoubted opinion that if the service conditions of the labourers are violated or if they are aggrieved from and out of any of the orders passed by the Food Corporation of India, then alone they are at liberty to approach the competent Court of Law. 9. However, on a perusal of the impugned Notification, it is a Tender Notification inviting applications from the eligible contractors for the purpose of engaging labourers. This Tender Notification is for fresh recruitment and will not affect and not connected with the service conditions of the existing labourers, who are already working under the Food Corporation of India under the Direct Payment System. 10. This apart, even at the time of passing the interim order, this Court reiterated that there is no bar for the Food Corporation of India to appoint new labourers. Further, it is made clear that the rights of the existing labourers are to be protected as per the rules in force. When such an observation is made by this Court, the mere apprehension now raised by the petitioner's Union that some of the labourers may be terminated or transferred to another Depot cannot constitute a cause of action for the purpose of challenging the Tender Notification issued by the Management for the recruitment of fresh labourers from open market through eligible contractors. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that as of now, the members of the Petitioner's Union are not transferred to any other department. 11. This being the legal principles to be followed, this Court is of an opinion that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the Tender Notification in view of the fact that the same will not constitute any cause of action for the writ petitioner Labour Union for the purpose of protecting the rights and interest of the members of the Labourers Union. 12. Secondly, the learned counsel for the Petitioner's Union submitted the letter issued by the Assistant General Manager, Head Office of the Food Corporation of India dated 04.06.2018, stating that the Notification issued by the Government of India is going to expire on 05.07.2018. 13. This being the factum of the case, no further adjudication needs to be entertained in respect of the other grounds raised in all these writ petitions. If at all the members of the writ petitioner's Union are aggrieved from and out of any order passed by the Management, they are at liberty to agitate the matter in the manner known to law. 14. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.