IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO. 92 OF 1997. 1. Subhash Mandrekar, r/at Maimoleam Udai Wadi, Vasco da Gama. 2. Lata Borkar, r/at Assai Dongri, Dabolim. 3. Uma Kalaskar, r/at Near Dabolim Railway Station, Goa. 4. Laxmi R. Velduki, r/at New Waddem Housing Board, Vasco da Gama. 5. Parvati Pednekar, r/at Near P.W.D. Tank, Aito Chicalim, Vasco da Gama. 6. Madhukar J. Naik, r/at Dabolim Airport, Goa. 7. Anthony John Dias, r/at c/o Krishna Tamborkar, H. No. 292/A, Rajina Mandir School, Chicalim. 8. Ashwini P. Gosawi, r/at Near Dabolim Railway Station, Goa. 9. Venkatesh Swamy, r/at Near Salgaocar’s Hospital, Chicalim. 10.Hanumanth Maryappa, r/at Assai Dongri, Dabolim. 11.Mariyamma Hatnari, r/at Assai Dongri, Dabolim. 12.Asha Mandrekar, r/at Maimoleam Udai Wadi, Vasco da Gama. 13.V. Murthy, r/at c/o Ganapati Tea Stall, Mangor Hill, Vasco. 14.Monica Fernandes, r/at Assai Dongri, Dabolim. 15.Anusha Kamble, r/at Assai Dongri, Dabolim. 16.Manohar G., r/at c/o Ganapati Tea Stall, Mangor Hill, Vasco. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Airports Authority of India, a statutory authority constituted under the provisions of The Airports - 2 - Authority of India Act 1994 and served through the Airport Director, Airports Authority of India, National Airports Division, Goa Airport, Goa. 2. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Shram Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. M/s. Mag Services, Beemay Villa, Belsur St. Matias, P.O. Piedade Divar, Ilhas Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Bras de Sa, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. Coram: P.V. KAKADE AND P.V. HARDAS, JJ. Date: 28th October 2002. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.) Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Dessai, learned senior advocate for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Lotlikar, learned senior advocate for the respondent no. 3. 2. Mr. Mulgaonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that the reliefs claimed by the petitioners are based on the Notification, dated 9th December 1976, issued by the Central Government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The said Notification has been struck down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of Steel Authority of Steel Authority of - 3 - India Limited and others v. National Union Water Front India Limited and others v. National Union Water Front India Limited and others v. National Union Water Front Workers and others Workers and others Workers and others, 2001 AIR SCW 3574. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petition becomes infructuous. It is needless to mention that dismissal of this petition would not come in the way of the petitioners seeking relief before the appropriate authority/forum. 4. Writ Petition is, thus, dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. (P.V. KAKADE) JUDGE. (P.V. HARDAS) JUDGE. ed’s.