B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the following reliefs :

1) Issuance of a writ of certiorari or any writ of the same or similar nature to quash and set aside the order of the Central Government dated 17th March 1992 taking a decision not to abolish contract labour in the canteen of the 1st respondent Corporation and a writ directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to abolish the system of Contract Labour in the canteen of the 1st respondent's refinery at Chembur.

2) A declaration that the contract labourers employed in the canteen of the 1st respondent's refinery are regular employees of the 1st respondent;

3) Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to give to the workmen working in the canteen of the 1st respondent's refinery the same wages and service conditions as are granted to the workmen working in the two departmentally run canteens of the 1st respondents.

2. The petitioner is a registered Trade Union. It represents, inter alia, workmen of the contractors engaged by the 1st respondent Corporation, which is a Government company carrying on the business of refining petroleum at its refineries at Mahul, Chembur. The 2nd respondent is a Director of the 1st respondent Corporation. The 3rd respondent is the Union of India and the 4th respondent is a statutory Board under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The 5th respondent is a contractor engaged by the 1st respondents to render catering services in the canteen located within the refinery at Mahul.

3. The 1st respondent's refinery at Mahul, Chembur, is registered as a factory under the Factories Act, 1948 and employs more than 3,000 workers in three shifts. In compliance with their statutory obligation under section 46 of the Factories Act, the 1st respondent have provided canteen facility within the premises of the said factory. The said canteen is not run departmentally by the 1st respondent, but is managed by a contractor who, at the material time when the petition was filed, happened to be the 5th respondent. The canteen of the 1st respondent has been in operation from the inception of the refinery and operates round the clock on all the days of the year.

4. The petitioner contends that the 1st and 2nd respondents have sought to discharge their statutory obligations by entrusting the work of running the canteen to a contractor. The canteen, being a statutory obligation, is an integral part of the manufacturing activity carried out in the factory (refinery) at Mahul. The work carried on therein is of a perennial nature and requires a permanent complement of workmen. The petitioner further alleges that, although the canteen within the refinery at Chembur has been managed by a contractor, all activities of the canteen are controlled, supervised, monitored and managed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner gives the details of such activities like menu planning, preparations, various services, operations of canteen stores, operation and deployment of manpower, accounting system and cost control, which are all alleged to be carried out by the 1st respondent's Officers and employees. The petition sets out in detail extracts from the Operating Manual stated to have been issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the canteen within the refinery is entirely under the supervision, control and management of the 1st and 2nd respondents, the workmen working in the said canteen through the contractor are discharging statutory duties and obligations of the 1st and 2nd respondents, and hence they should be deemed and declared to be the direct employees of the 1st respondent; despite interposition of the middleman, namely, the canteen contractor, and the paper arrangements, the contract system in the Refinery canteen, is merely a sham. In paragraph 13 of the petition are pointed