SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vivek Ratan, learned counsel for the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (in short "the NTPC") and the learned Standing counsel and also pursued the materials on record.
(2.) The petitioners have sought the following reliefs: (i) writ, order or direction in, the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to treat the petitioner to be their permanent employee from the date of their employment through Contractor (ii) writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to take immediate action against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition), Act, 1970 (iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; (iv) to award the cost of the petitioner.
(3.) It is said by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since they have completed 240 days in a year and had worked for two years - continuously, therefore, they are entitled for being made permanent in the services of the NTPC. Reliance has been placed on Shailendra Singh and Others v. NTPC Ltd. (1996) UPLBEC 691. On the contrary, the respondents NTPC placed reliance on the principles of law enunciated in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others AIR 2009 SC 120 : 2009-I-LLJ-241, (in short- SAIL.-III) and a judgment of this Court in t Shashi Kant Upadhyaya and Others v. National Thermal Corporation Ltd. New Delhi and Others. (1992) Lab.I.C.1610.;