( 1 ) ). This bunch of eight Special Civil Application is based on identical facts and involve common questions of law and hence all these petitions are decided by this common judgment and order.

( 2 ) ). Initially Special Civil Application No. 8840 of 1989 was filed jointly on behalf of 8 petitioners on 27-12-1989. On that very day, when the matter came up before the Court, leave was granted to file separate petitions for petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 and in terms of Courts order dated 27-12-1989, 7 more petitions being Special civil Application Nos. 8913 to 8919 of 1989 were filed.

( 3 ) ). On 12-10-1990 Rule was issued in each of these petitions with the order that they will be heard with Special Civil Application No. 3522 of 1989. On the question of interim relief, it was recorded with regard to the petitioners in Special civil Application Nos. 8914 to 8916 of 1989 that they had already been terminated from the service with effect from 10-2-1990 and with regard to the petitioner in special Civil Application No. 8919 of 1989 it was recorded that he had already left the service. For the remaining petitioners, status quo was directed to be continued till further orders and it was also recorded that the contract of Nayan Creative marketing Consultants was to terminate by 31-12-1990 and, therefore, the interim relief was ordered to enure till the time the contract of Nayan Creative Marketing consultants was to be terminated and that in case the new contractor is engaged, the Commission shall introduce a term in the contract whereby the existing employees shall continue with them and this interim relief was to be available to these petitioners in the respective petitions, i. e. , Special Civil Application Nos. 8840, 8913, 8917 and 8918 of 1989. It was also clarified in the order dated 12-10-1990 that in case no new contractor is appointed vice contractor-respondent No. 4, i. e. , nayan Creative Marketing Consultants, the question of continuing the interim relief thereafter would not survive. It has been given out by the parties that the contract continued upto 31-3-1991 and, therefore, the petitioners in Special Civil Application nos. 8840, 8913, 8917 and 8918 of 1989 continued till 31-3-1991 on the strength of the interim order. It was then given out by Mr. Shahani appearing for the petitioners that M. M. Ashrafi, i. e. , petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8840 of 1989, M. M. Shaikh - petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8913 of 1989 are out of employment since 31-3-1991 as stated above, but Bariya Pratap ranchhodbhai - petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8917 of 1989 and mansuri Munaf Mohd. Kasam - petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8918 of 1989 are continued with the Contractor-Panache Associates, Vadodara even at present as they were later on recalled with different Contractors from time to time, i. e. , with Maruti Electrical, Ankleshwar in May, 1991, Ajay Electromics, Ahmedabad from April 199 2/02/1993, Shri Baba Electricals, Ahmedabad (also known as Dutt Intercom Sales and Services) from March 1993 to March 1995 and Panache associates, Vadodara from 1-4-1995 onwards. But this contract with Panache associates, Vadodara is scheduled to come to an end on 30-4-1996 and, therefore, these two petitioners, i. e. , Bariya Pratap Ranchhodbhai and Mansuri Munaf Mohd. Kasam are also facing prospects of being rendered unempolyed from 30-4-1996.

( 4 ) ). It appears from the submission made in the main Special Civil Application No. 8840 of 1989 that certain employees, other than these petitioners, who were engaged through labour contracts, had also filed Special Civil Application Nos. 6659 of 1987, 7767 of 1988 and 3522 of 1989 and in Special Civil Application No. 7767 of 1988 an order was passed by the Division Bench on 30-11-88 that the contractor will not terminate the services of the petitioners unless his contract is terminated by the O. N. G. C. and in the event of termination of the contr