RAJENDRA KARAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioners praying that respondents may be restrained from dispensing with the services of the petitioners and not to appoint new workers in their place. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

(2.) It is alleged by the petitioners that petitioners were engaged by the contractor to work for the respondent no.1 through respondent No. 2 and 3. They were employed through respondent No. 4. I cards were issued by respondent No.3 as contractor labour employees. The work being done by the petitioners was of perennial nature. The contract was camouflage so as to defeat the claim of the petitioners as permanent employee on permanent roll of respondent No.3. Petitioners are desirous to challenge their engagement through contractor. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to seek injunction as prayed so that they are secure till they raise dispute and dispute is decided.

(3.) I consider that the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioners have not approached this court for enforcement of any legal right. So long as the contact labour is not prohibited by appropriate government, respondent No.2 and 3 have a legal right to engage respondent No.4 for providing security services. Merely because petitioners consider that a notification under Section 10C C.L.R.A. was necessary, it cannot approach this Court and obtain an injunction against respondents No.2 and 3 who have admittedly not violated any legal right of the petitioners. In Secretary of State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others 2006(4) SCALE 197 Supreme Court held: