JUDGMENT : 1. Notice to respondents. 2. Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned CGC accepts notice for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondents 3 to 5. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, counsel for Union of India-respondents 1 and 2 and counsel for respondents 3 to 5. 5. This writ petition has been filed bringing out certain very disturbing facts about the manner of employing manpower in the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, said to be functioning under the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (3 rd respondent). 6. The writ petition highlights the facts that though the said Institute is said to be a pioneer Research and Development Institute in the field of Mining and Fuel Technology, and a constituent laboratory of the CSIR, Government of India, New Delhi, it is employing manpower through a process of tendering, periodically for about an year, causing disengagement of the services of the persons employed at the end of the tenure of the contract, oblivious of the Constitutional mandate to create permanent positions for the persons necessary to be employed therein, such as the petitioners. 7. The Supreme Court of India in The Secretary, State of Karnataka and others. V. Umadevi and others 2006 (4) SCC 1 , has highlighted the necessity of State as well as the instrumentalities of State resorting to the regular processes of recruitment or appointment so that the principles enshrined in the Constitution under Articles 14 and 16 are applied and followed scrupulously. In Paragraph 26 of the said judgment the Court has held that it is the duty of the Courts to insist on the State making regular and proper recruitments and that the Courts are bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. 8. The engagement of the petitioners through contractors, in the instant case, as can be seen from paragraph 9, seems to go back to 1995. The CIMFR is persisting in such replacement of contract employees with others periodically since then which is impermissible. 9. 8. The engagement of the petitioners through contractors, in the instant case, as can be seen from paragraph 9, seems to go back to 1995. The CIMFR is persisting in such replacement of contract employees with others periodically since then which is impermissible. 9. It is also not in dispute that a Reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad to decide as to whether the demand of certain employees for regularization in the establishment of the said Institute is legal and justified and if so, to what relief they are entitled to, which Reference was numbered as Reference Case No. 89 of 2006 but it is stated that the said dispute still pending adjudication before the said Tribunal because of lack of Presiding Officer. 10. In the meantime, the respondents are merrily resorting to issuance of tenders and appointing people through the Contractors like the 6 th respondent, every year in blatant violation of the principles enshrined in the Constitution and also the judgment in Umadevi, referred to (supra). 11. Curiously, the stand of the 1 st respondent is that because there is no directive from the said Industrial Tribunal not to float a fresh tender for hiring of outsource manpower through Contractors, they are justified in continuing with this process. Such a stand cannot be countenanced. 12. It is also sought to be defended by the respondents stating that the petitioners are outsource workers and there is no employer and employee relationship between the Institute and them. 13. Prima-facie, this sort of action on the part of the respondents is in the nature of “unfair labour practice” amounting to exploiting the persons engaged through Contractors by denying them the benefit of the rule of reservation, medical benefits, regular pay scales, leave, pension and other benefits. 14. This Court cannot be blind to such a gross infraction of the Constitution by the respondents and permit the respondents to continue to indulge in this sort of deviant behaviour. 15. Therefore, pending further orders, no fresh tender for engaging workers on outsourcing basis shall be issued by respondents 3 to 5 and the services of the petitioners shall not be disengaged by them, until further orders. 16. List on 15.04.2025.