JUDGMENT

 This special leave petition arises out of and is directed against the order dated 6th April 1992 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in LPA No. 43 of 1992 arising out of W. P. No. 1221 of 1992.

2. The petitioner "Association of Chemical Workers, Bombay" claims to represent and has brought this action on behalf of 472 workmen who were the erstwhile workmen appointed by various labour contractors engaged by the management - respondent No. 2 herein. In view of certain disturbed industrial relations, respondent 2 on 20th Nov. 1979 terminated the very contract with the labour contractors as a sequel to which the labour contractors, in turn, terminated the services of all these workmen on various dates soon thereafter. It is alleged that, thereafter, the same labour contractors had been reengaged by the respondent No. 2 and those contractors continued the same work with a new set of workmen.

3. In the year 1985, the labour-contract system then prevailing in various departments of respondent No. 2 came to be abolished by Government. The notification in this behalf was challenged by respondent No. 2 but it came to be upheld by the High Court except for some areas of operation which were saved for contract-labour. The matter ultimately came to rest with order of the High Court being left undisturbed by this Court.

4. The workmen-petitioners have been agitating the question of the legality and fairness of termination of their services done in the year 1979 contending, inter alia, that the erection of the intermediary of labour contractors was merely a device and facade; that they were all really employees of respondent No. 2 and that the termination was an unfair labour practice and void. After a chequered course of litigation, the matter ultimately came before the Industrial Court of Maharashtra, Thane, in "Complaint (ULP) No. 264 of 1989" under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Apart from the aforesaid contentions the workmen contended before the Industrial Court that, at all events, after the abolition 1 of the contract-labour in the year 1985, they automatically became the workmen of respondent No. 2 and were entitled to reliefs of reinstatement, back wages etc.

5. The Industrial Court by its order dated 17th February 1992 dismissed this action for various reasons. The Industrial Court noticed, inter alia, that between 1979, when the petitioner-workmens services were terminated by the then labour-contractors, and 1985, when the contract labour was abolished in certain areas of operation of respondent No. 2, the labuour contractors had employed their own separate set of workmen and that, therefore, even, if, as a result of the abolition of contract labour, workmen became the employees of the principal, those workmen were other than the petitioners. The High Court in W. P. No. 1221 of 1992 brought by the petitioner-workmen upheld the order of the Industrial Court. The High Court observed

"In view of the several previous orders of the High Court as well as the Apex Court and especially referred in para 34 of the impugned order and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Dena Naths case reported in (1991) 4 JT (SC) 413, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Rejected."

The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 43 of 1992 dismissed the workmens appeal observing:

"We agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned single Judge and summarily dismiss the Appeal."

6. We have heard Mr. Salve, learned senior counsel for the workmen and Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel for the second respondent company. We are persuaded to the view that the order of the High Court sought to be appealed against does not call for interference. It is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the contentions strenuously urged by Mr. Salve that upon termination of the contract labour, the workmen of the contractor would automatically become the wor