( 1 ) THE appellants above named have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent in order to challenge the judgment and order dated 30. 3. 2001 recorded by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 12531 of 2000 under which the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition of the appellants at the admission stage. The appellants above named preferred the aforesaid Special Civil Application in this Court against the respondents above named stating that the petitioners have been performing work of a permanent nature in the premises of respondent No. 1 and they have been performing their duties continuously and without any break since 1981. That with a view to avoid grant of permanency benefits to the appellant, respondent no. 1 has shown the appellants as employees of a contractor. That the appellants are, at present, working through respondent No. 2 and prior thereto the appellants were working through Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. which was shown as contractor of the first respondent. That in fact, they were and are the employees of the first respondent but the first respondent goes on changing the contractors. However, all the contractors have continued the appellants as their employees. However, according to the case of the appellants, they are not shown to be employees of the first respondent with a view to avoid grant of permanency benefits to the appellants. It was, therefore, the prayer of the appellants above named that respondent No. 1 be directed to absorb the petitioners in permanent employment by relaxing the requirement of age in their favour from the date on which the other similarly situated employees have been absorbed by the first respondent and to grant the appellants all consequential benefits on that basis. The appellants also contended before the learned Single Judge that the persons appointed subsequent to the appointment of the appellants have been made permanent and despite the fact that the appellants were appointed long back, they have not been made permanent. The appellants also contended before the learned Single Judge that a Special Civil Application was earlier filed, being Special Civil Application No. 2573/97, before this Court. That in the said matter, an order was passed directing the Regional Labour Commissioner to enquire into the matter and submit his report on the point of actual working of the appellants. The appellants further contended before the learned Single Judge that the Regional Labour Commissioner has verified the position on the spot and submitted his report and identified 70 of the employees as belonging to the categories in which the employment of labour was prohibited by notification dated 8. 9. 1994 issued under section of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970. (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). That since the notification has been issued as aforesaid and as per the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner, the appellants were working in the categories in which the contract labour was prohibited by the aforesaid notification dated 8. 9. 1994, the appellants automatically became the direct employees of the first respondent and, therefore also, according to their case, they were entitled to the aforesaid benefits of absorption, permanency and all consequential benefits. Therefore also they claimed the said benefits in the said writ petition. Therefore, they filed the aforesaid petition claiming that the aforesaid relief may be granted to the present appellants. The learned Single Judge appreciated the pleadings, documents and arguments and thereafter the learned Single Judge found that the present appellants were not employed in the employment of the first respondent. He also came to a decision that the appellants were working as Plant Asstt. Class II and therefore, their employment was not covered by the said Notification dated 8. 9. 1994. The learned Single Judge also found that the