( 1 ). THE petitioners in these two writ petitions were working as contract labourers since several years in the maintenance and operation works in electrical department under the supervision of the 3rd respondent-Executive Engineer, electrical Department in Begumpet Airport under the Administrative control of the 2nd respondent i. e. , Airport Authority of India and at a time when their services were sought to be terminated on the pretext that the term of the existing contractor expired and a new contractor has been engaged to attend to the works that are being performed by the petitioners all through filed these writ petitions for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to the respondents to consider their cases for regularization hi the trades they are working without inducting fresh candidates.

( 2 ). The undisputed facts of this case are that the 3rd respondent claiming to be the principal employer getting the works of maintenance and operation done by entering into contracts from time to time with the contractors who in turn were engaging the services of the petitioners as contract labourers to attend to these works. It also came to light that most of the petitioners are continuing in service by virtue of Clause incorporated in the agreement entered into between the 3rd respondent and the contractor that he shall engage the services of the existing contract labourers. There seemed to be a change in the officer in the year 1998 and this officer having deleted the said clause, issued notification and entered into an agreement with the 4th respondent to attend to the above works with effect from 20-6-1998 after following the procedure. In those circumstances, the 1st writ petition was filed. This Court while admitting the writ petition seemed to have not granted any interim directions for continuance of the services of the petitioners. Having failed to get the relief from this Court, Airport authority Kamgar Union representing the petitioners, filed a case before the conciliation Officer-cum-Regional Labour commissioner (Centre) at Hyderabad under Section 2 (k) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 to admit the dispute of illegal termination of the services of the petitioners by the respondents in conciliation. The Conciliation Officer having admitted the dispute disposed of the same in his proceeding No. 8 (A)/l/98-E2, dated 18-8-1998 by addressing a letter to the secretary to the Government of India, ministry of Labour, New Delhi wherein he suggested that the entire dispute should be referred to Contract Labour Advisory Board (Central) for giving appropriate relief to the petitioners.

( 3 ) IN the last week of July, 1998 the petitioners filed 3 WPMPs i. e. , (1) WPMP. 26343/98 seeking permission of the Court to implead 3 more official respondents (2) wpmp. 26344/98 seeking a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service by declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to attend duties as illegal and (3) WPMP. 26345/98 seeking a direction to the respondents to engage the services of the petitioners for attending to the electrical maintenance work at the Airport pending disposal of the writ petition. All these 3 wpmps were posted before this Court on 4- 8-1998 and the respondents Counsel contended that there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent and as the term of the previous contractor was over, the question of continuing their services by the airport does not arise. As the new contractor was also made a party respondent to these proceedings while observing that the relief sought for by the petitioners will be considered after the counters are filed, directed the respondents to make internal arrangements to continue the petitioners in service. The respondents in the counter filed on 6-8-1998 contended that the works that are being attended by the petitioners are not perennial in nature and depending upon the administra