1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.791 OF 2009 Jaiprakash N. Uchil and Ors. ...Petitioners. v. Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.V.P.Vaidya, adv. For the petitioners. Mr.N.R.Prajapati, adv. For the Respondent No.1. Mr.S.K.Talsania, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Kavita Anchan i/by M.V.Kini & Co., advs. for the Respondent No.2. Mr.Bhavik Manek i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co., adv. for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 22, 2010 P.C. 1 Petitioners are working with the contractors appointed by the respondent no.3. In that context , neither the respondent no.1 nor the respondent no.2 are necessary parties. Respondent no.3 not being State or other authority, the present petition would not be maintainable. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to draw attention to the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in Indira Gandhi Airport TDI Karamchari Union v. Union of India & Ors. in LPA 38/07 decided on December 18, 2009. On behalf of the respondent 2 no.3, the learned counsel draws attention to the paragraph 59 of the said order. We do not propose to go into the controversy as in Delhi , contract labour was abolished when the respondent no.2 was in charge of running affairs of the airport. 3 However, considering the controversy, in our opinion as the petitioners have been working for long time, the respondent no.3 to ensure that if the contractors are changed as far as possible these petitioners are continued in service with new contractors subject to their suitability and as long as there are no disciplinary proceedings for serious misconduct against them. This is purely on humanitarian ground. 4 With the above observations, petition stands disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)