JUDGMENT Jagdish Sahai, A. C. J. - This is a writ petition by M/s Agra Electric Supply Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) : The prayer is that a writ of prohibition be issued restraining the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Inspector, Agra Region, Agra, the Sole respondent, from launching any prosecution for non-registration of electricity supply undertaking of the company as Motor Transport Undertaking under the provisions of Section 3, read with rule 4 framed under the Motor Transport Workers' Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). There is also it prayer for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to enforce the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers' Act, 1961, to the electricity supply under taking of the Company at Agra. In addition, there is the usual prayer for the issue of any other writ, order or direction as this Court may, in the circumstances of the case, deem fit and proper. 2. The material facts as alleged in the writ petition are firstly, that the petitioner carries on the business of generating, distributing and selling electricity and is not a Motor Transport undertaking; secondly, that the four motor vehicles which it owns and which are registered as private carriers within the meaning of Sub-Sec. (22) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are used for incidental purposes and not for the business of generating, distributing and selling electricity; thirdly, that the seven motor drivers and three motor cleaners that it has employed for running the four motor vehicles-aforesaid are not engaged in generating, distributing and selling of electricity; and lastly, that they are getting much more benefit from the petitioner then they would be entitled to if the electricity undertaking of the petitioner, at least so far as the four motor vehicles and the ten workmen mentioned are concerned, be treated Motor Transport Undertaking. 3. 3. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that inasmuch as the four motor vehicles mentioned above are registered as private carriers under the Motor Vehicles Act and are used for the purpose of carrying the goods of the petitioner with the object of proper maintenance and distribution of electricity to the consumers and inasmuch as the petitioner has employed more than five transport workers, the motor vehicles and the persons so employed must be held to be employed in a motor transport undertaking and for that reason are covered by the provisions of the Act. 4. There is categorical assertion in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner is an undertaking for generating, distributing and selling electricity and is a motor Transport Undertaking. 5. The Act does not define the word "undertaking" but that word has been held to mean "any business or any work or project which one engages in or attempts as an enterprise analogous to business or trade." See M. G. C. Employees' Union v. Management, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 554, D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee. A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 58. 6. Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act defines "motor transport undertaking" as "a motor transport undertaking engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward, and includes a private carrier." Therefore before the four motor vehicles owned by the petitioner and the ten workers employed by it in connection with those motor 'Vehicles constitute the petitioner undertaking as a motor transport undertaking, it would have to be found as a necessary ingredient of the definition that those motor vehicles are carrying passengers or goods for hire or rewards. In the instant case they are not doing so either for hire or reward. The Motor Vehicles are used only in order to facilitate the petitioner in doing its business. They are in the nature of machine labour. 7. It is true that the long title, the preamble and the short title of the act is very comprehensive. The long title is "an Act to provide for the welfare of motor transport workers and to regulate the conditions of their work", and not "an Act to provide for the welfare of workers in motor transport undertaking and to regulate the conditions of their work". The long title is "an Act to provide for the welfare of motor transport workers and to regulate the conditions of their work", and not "an Act to provide for the welfare of workers in motor transport undertaking and to regulate the conditions of their work". Similar the short title only speaks of "This Act may be called the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961" and not "this Act may be called the Motor Transport Undertaking workers Act, 1961". But a preamble though a key to the interpretation of the Act cannot override the statutory provisions contained in the Act. The expression "motor transport worker" has been defined by Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act as follows : "(h) "motor transport workers" means a person who is employed in a motor transport undertaking directly or through an agency, whether for wages or not, to work in a professional capacity on a transport vehicle or to attend to duties in connection with the arrival, departure, loading or unloading of such transport vehicle and includes a driver, conductor, cleaner, station staff, line checking staff booking clerk, cash clerk, depot clerk, time-keeper, watchman or attendant, but except in Section 8 does not include- (i) any such person who is employed in a factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948; (ii) any such person to whom the provisions of any law for the time being in force regulating the conditions of service of persons employed in shops of commercial establishments apply;" It is clear that in order to be a motor transport worker within the meaning of the Act, he must be employed in a motor transport undertaking. 8. We have already said earlier that the petitioner's undertaking is not a motor transport undertaking, but an undertaking for generating, distributing and supplying of electricity. It is also clear from the definition that thy, workers contemplated by the Act are those workers who are employed in a motor transport undertaking, the main concern of which is to carry goods or passengers by road for hire or for reward. It is also clear from the definition that thy, workers contemplated by the Act are those workers who are employed in a motor transport undertaking, the main concern of which is to carry goods or passengers by road for hire or for reward. The inclusion in the definition of the station staff, line checking staff, the booking clerk, the cash clerk, the depot clerk and the time keeper indicates that the legislature intended to include only those who were employed in an undertaking, the primary business of which was to ply public carriers or stage carriages on hire or for reward. 9. It has been categorically stated in the petition that the petitioner's employees who are driving and looking after the four motor Vehicles are being treated on the basis that the provisions of the shops and Commercial Establishment Act apply to them (See paragraphs Nos. 5, 10 and 11 of the Writ Petition) . These facts have not been controverted in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner's case, therefore, would fall under Clause (ii) of Section 2 (h) of the Act and for that reason they would not be deemed to be motor transport workers within the meaning of the Act. 10. For the reasons mentioned above I allow this petition and issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent not to treat the petitioner as a motor transport workers undertaking or to treat personnel employed by the petitioner in connection with the four motor vehicles maintained by it, as motor transport workers. The petitioner shall receive costs from the respondent.