High Court cannot go into disputed facts and evidence.

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

The present writ petition has been filed by a Trade Union, through its General Secretary. Mainly speaking, the petitioners case is that its members, who were contract labourers, were discriminated against and were not absorbed in the regular employment in pursuance of the policy of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, first respondent herein, more particularly, in its unit Ennore Thermal Power Station, second respondent herein, whereas the juniors to these workers were actually absorbed and regularised. A direction is, therefore, sought to absorb the members of the petitioner Union in regular services consequent to the abolition of the contract labour system. The reference to this complaint is to be found in paragraph 35 of the main affidavit, dated November 1, 1998. It is stated therein as follows :

"It is submitted that after the filing of W.P. Nos. 13327, 15188 and 16743 of 1998 the workmen listed in Annexure I enclosed herewith are being denied employment by respondents 2 to 23 since these workers were active in the formation of the petitioner union and instrumental in filing of these writ petitions."

Annexure I makes a reference to the details of workmen employed through the respondents, including respondents 4 to 23, who are said to be the contract labourers in various establishments. A complaint is made that new persons were brought in by the contractors and the contractors were also indiscriminately reducing the number of persons, who were actually employed by them and who are deserved to be made permanent and an ad interim injunction was, therefore, sought against the respondents 2 to 23 from denying employment to the workmen listed in Annexure I to the writ petition. In addition, a writ of declaration was sought that all the workmen listed in Annexure I to the writ petition to be the permanent workmen of respondents 2 and 3 consequently, a direction was also sought that all those workers should be regularised and absorbed in services on the same pay as was paid to the permanent workmen.The petition, to begin with, has given a whole history as to how the second respondent-Board was formed. The petition also refers to the earlier decisions taken by the Board for regularisation of the casual workers. The petition then gives the history as to what works were being done by the workmen employed by each respondent-contractor. In fact, the pleadings upto paragraph 25, only suggest the various works done by the workers engaged through the respondent-contractors separately. A reference then has been made in paragraph 25 that the first respondent has prohibited employment of contract labour for the work done by the labourers employed through most of the contractors. The wage structure is described in paragraph 26 and in paragraph 27, a complaint is made that for all these years when the wages were being distributed to the workers, no authorised representative of the principal employer was present at the time of disbursement of the wages by the contractors, i.e., respondents 4 to 23. A reference is then made to W.P. Nos. 13327 and 15294 of 1998, which were filed on behalf of the workers, complaining against the exploitation in the matter of payment of wages. A reference is then made to the directions issued by this Court in those writ petitions whereby, the petitioners counsel was also permitted to be present at the time of disbursement of wages of the contract labourers. It is then pointed out that thereafter, the wages to the contract labourers were being disbursed in presence of the counsel for the petitioner. A further reference is made to the contractors, who were not making the payments to all the workers. It is then contended that the contractors were using the new registers for the disbursement of wages and the old registers, which were in vogue prior to the institution of the writ petition, were not any more being used. It is also pointed out that though the register showed three columns rega