JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to regularise the services of the Petitioners by absorbing them in Coimbatore Corporation.) 1. Heard Mr. S.Gopinathan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. P.Balathandayutham, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First and Second Respondents and Mr. K.Magesh, Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Petitioners had been engaged as Sanitary workers from the year 2004 through contractor by the erstwhile Veerakeralam Town Panchayat, which had merged with the Coimbatore Corporation in the year 2011. At that time, the Executive Officer of Veerakeralam Town Panchayat by Proceedings dated 10.08.2011 and 15.08.2011 sent the list of temporary staff of the Town Panchayat to Coimbatore Corporation recommending to appoint them by giving priority. It is the case of the Petitioners that even though they are still continued to be employed in Coimbatore Corporation, their services have not been regularized, which has necessitated to file this Writ Petition for their absorption Coimbatore Corporation. 3. The claim of the Petitioners is opposed by the Respondents stating that the arrangement of engaging the services of the Petitioners is through self-help groups and it is not through direct recruitment. It is also stated that it is not possible to regularize the services of those who have been engaged as contract labour through contractor and that the absorption in service would arise for consideration only in respect of those who were directly employed on daily wages by the Third Respondent. 4. The law relating to regularization of services of contract workers is now settled by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Steel Authority of India Limited -vs- National Union Waterfront Workers [ (2001) 7 SCC 1 ], in which it has been held as follows:- “125. 4. The law relating to regularization of services of contract workers is now settled by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Steel Authority of India Limited -vs- National Union Waterfront Workers [ (2001) 7 SCC 1 ], in which it has been held as follows:- “125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus: (1)(a) Before 28-1-1986, the determination of the question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression “appropriate Government” as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry, or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government; (b) After the said date in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer to the question referred to above, has to be found in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act; if (i) the Central Government company/undertaking concerned or any undertaking concerned is included therein eo nomine, or (ii) any industry is carried on (a) by or under the authority of the Central Government, or (b) by a railway company; or (c) by a specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated, will be the appropriate Government (2)(a) A notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment has to be issued by the appropriate Government: (1) after consulting with the Central Advisory Board or the State Advisory Board, as the case may be, and (2) having regard to (i) conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment in question, and (ii) other relevant factors including those mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10; (b) Inasmuch as the impugned notification issued by the Central Government on 9-12-1976 does not satisfy the aforesaid requirements of Section 10, it is quashed but we do so prospectively i.e. from the date of this judgment and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this judgment no order passed or no action taken giving effect to the said notification on or before the date of this judgment, shall be called in question in any tribunal or court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained finality and/or it has been implemented. (3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. (3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned. (4) We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India case [ (1997) 9 SCC 377 ] prospectively and declare that any direction issued by any industrial adjudicator/any court including the High Court, for absorption of contract labour following the judgment in Air India case [ (1997) 9 SCC 377 ] shall hold good and that the same shall not be set aside, altered or modified on the basis of this judgment in cases where such a direction has been given effect to and it has become final. (5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder. (6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications. 126. We have used the expression “industrial adjudicator” by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires enquiry into disputed questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be the Industrial Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review.” In view of the aforesaid legal position, if the Petitioners, who are contract labour, have any grievance relating to their non-absorption in service, they would have to necessarily work out their remedies following the prescribed procedure and it is not possible to grant any relief by way of Writ Petition, as in this case. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the clarifications. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.