JUDGMENT :

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent learned counsel for respective parties heard for final disposal at the admission stage.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs :

“A] The Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby prohibit the Respondents from hiring Security Guards and Health Workers through agencies as contractor labour.

B] The Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the Security Guards and Health Workers enlisted in Annexure “C” and “E” respectively are the employees of Respondent No. 2 Tuljabhavani Mandir Sansthan.

C] Alternatively, the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby direct the Respondents to regularize the services of Security Guards and Health Workers enlisted in Annexure - “C” and “E” respectively.

D] The Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay wages for the services already rendered Security Guards and Health Workers enlisted in Annexure - “C” and “E” respectively equal to the wages paid to the Security Guards and Health Workers shown on the establishment of the Respondent No. 2 and pay the difference accordingly.

E] The Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the difference as prayed in prayer clause – C with interest on unpaid amount @ 18% p.a.”

3. The petitioner states that it is a registered trade union and espousing the present cause for 211 security guards and 100 health workers rendering services with the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is Tuljabhavani Mandir Sansthan/Temple Trust. The assets and the management of the respondent No. 2 is taken over by the Government. The Tahsildar is the manager of the respondent No. 2. It is contended that the security guards and health workers which are members of the petitioner union are the employees of the respondent No. 2. They are not getting regular scale muchless the minimum wages. The members are working for last one year to ten years. The petitioner has produced Annexure – B and C showing dues of the security guards since 2010. Further Annexure – D is produced to show the dues of heath workers rendering services from the year 2010.

4. The respondent No. 2 has from time to time outsourced the services of the security guards and the health workers by entering into contract. It is stated that various work orders and the contracts are issued. A chart is produced at Exhibit – N showing the details of the security guards and their salaries. Similarly the chart in case of health workers is produced at Exhibit – P. It is contended that these labourers are under the control of either Chief Officer or the Tahsildar who are administering the respondent No. 2. They are ostensibly shown to be the contract labourers. It is further contended that the labourers suffered discrimination in the matters of payment of wages as compared to the wages paid by the employees engaged by the respondent No. 2.

5. It is further contended that members of the petitioner union made representations on 01.05.2019 to the respondent No. 2. Similar representations were made on 21.06.2019, 13.07.2019 and many more to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The members of the petitioner union made a demand for regularization of services and payment of arrears of wages. But no attention was paid by the respondents. The Labour Commissioner also called upon the respondent No. 2 to reply to the demand. The Labour Inspector was appointed to submit the report. The petitioner has also placed on record the supplementary demand.

6. On the premise stated above, the petitioner union has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs stated in the opening paragraphs of this judgment.

7. The respondents filed distin