Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—When certain grievances were there of the workmen working with the petitioner, an industrial dispute was raised and on 3.3.1986, it was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The reference as was made was to the following effect :

“Whether, in law, the petitioners and the 48 workmen whose services have been terminated are employees of the Indian Oil Corporation. Mathura Refinery Project, Mathura? Whether the termination of the services of 48 workmen was justified? And to what relief are the workmen entitled?”

2. The award was finally passed on 15.9.1989 and it was held in paragraph 17 that the contract labour employed at the Mathura Refinery were in law not employees of the Indian Oil Corporation. Paragraph 17 is being reproduced here as under :

“17. In the light of the foregoing discussion it is held that the contract labour employed at the Mathura Refinery are in law not the employees of the Indian Oil Corporation.”

However, reference was answered in paragraph 19 of the award which is as follows :

“19. In view of the discussion made above this is answered against the petitioners/Union in favour of the Management.”

3. Even though the reference was answered against the workman a certain observation was made in the award which was as follows :

“Till such time the Central Advisory Board makes its recommendations and action is taken, the management may ensure that the contract labour shall be paid at least the minimum of the pay-scale of its regular employees performing the same or similar duties as the workmen of the Contract labour and further that the workmen among the contract labour who have put in 5 years or more of work at the Mathura Refinery shall be continued to be employed in the same work even if there is a change in the contractor and such workmen shall not be terminated except as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action for misconduct etc. voluntary retirement or retirement on reaching the age of superannuation (which may be taken as the superannuation age for the I.O.C. Employees) or on ground of continuous ill health. In AIR 1985 SC 409 ibid, it was observed as under:”

4. Against the award, a civil appeal was entertained by the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 15.2.1991. However, the Supreme Court made a certain observation which is relevant for the purpose of this case and so the same is being reproduced here as under :

“Those casual workers were under the employment of the state and the State came out with a scheme for phased absorption and a grated financial responsibility. In the instant case before us, the contract labourers are not, and have also not been found to be, having a direct connection with the refinery, even though it is a State for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights. The suggestions/directions given by the Tribunal, appear to us to be the only relief which was due to the appellant and its members in the given situation and circumstances. Therefore, the impugned award of the Tribunal cannot be improved upon.”

5. On 9.11.1998, the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, issued a certain order. The petitioners here filed a writ petition numbered as Writ Petition No. 426 of 1999 before the Delhi High Court.

6. In the meantime, one Sohan Lal who is respondent No. 2 in this writ petition filed an application before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) at Kanpur with a prayer for the implementation of the direction as was given in the award dated 15.9.1989. On this application, the Regional Labour Commissioner vide order dated 14.11.2007 ordered that the application of the Mazdoor Sangh shall remain in abeyance till the disposal of the writ petition No. 426 of 1999 which was filed by the Mathura Refinery before the Delhi High Court. This order dated 14.11.2007 was challenged by the Mazdoor Sangh by means of wri