The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court cannot issue a writ of mandamus when there are no established rights, and the rights of the petitioners were inchoate and yet to be crystallized.

These writ petitions involve a question as to the scope of exercise of power by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus to command the principal employer not to alter the service conditions of the contract labourers (petitioners) pending adjudication of a dispute regarding regularization before the Industrial Adjudicator.

2. The petitioners are the contract labourer working with different contractors engaged by the Indian Space Organisation (ISRO) and its other establishments (hereinafter referred to as principal employer') for the purpose of executing work in the units under it. The petitioners claim that they are employed in various units of the principal employer and many of them have completed more than 20 years of service. They have been engaged continuously by the contractors to execute the work on behalf of principal employer. The length of service rendered by the petitioners varies from 9 to 20 years. The petitioners also approached the Regional Labour Commissioner Central, Thiruvananthapuram raising an industrial dispute for regularization in the service of principal employer. According to the petitioners, the contract of labour work is camouflaged to avoid the compliance of various statutory provisions to deprive monetary benefits and welfare measures to them. The petitioners claim that the establishments of principal employer are covered by the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (the 'CLRA Act' for short). Therefore, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners will have to be treated as employees of principal employer and entitled for regularization in the service of the principal employer. The petitioners have approached this court seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the principal employer not to alter the service conditions of the petitioners directly or indirectly affecting the procedure for regularization of their service during the pendency of adjudication before the Industrial adjudicator.

3. Since the common question of law involved in these writ petitions and reliefs sought for are one and the same, these writ petitions are considered together for disposal.

4. The principal employer resisted this writ petition contending that they discharge the sovereign function and therefore, the establishment under them cannot be termed as an industry. It is their case that the Department of Space and its functionality ISRO/LPSC and its constituent centres discharge sovereign functions. It is contended that the primary objective of the principal employer is to promote development activities of space science and technology for all round development of the nation. It is the case that principal employer focus on core area of the work and outsource all peripheral nature of work through contract labour system. They denied having any employer-employee relationship with workers engaged by the contractors, and also stated that officials of principal employer do not exercise any supervisory function over the workers employed by the contractors for the execution of the work. It is also contended that while awarding the work, principal employer ensured compliance of provisions of CLRA Act and other labour legislations. It is further stated that the terms and conditions of the contract provide that the contractor shall obtain license under the CLRA Act. Thus, it is submitted that the contract labourers are not exploited and they are provided with all rights and benefits as provided under the CLRA Act. It is also contended by the principal employer that the grievance of the petitioners cannot be decided by this Court and the petitioners are having an alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

5. Issues in these writ petitions are arising in the context of CLRA Act, 1970. The case of the petitioners is that the contract awarded by the principal employer to various contractors are sham and camoufl