JUDGMENT Mookerjee, J. : These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of his Lordship Mr. Justice Murari Mohan Dutt discharging the three Civil Rules obtained by the three sets of appellants inter alia, challenging the enforcement of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation und Abolition) Act, 1970, against the appellants in respect of any of their vessels or any office or establishment or alleged establishment. The appellants of F.M.A. No. 131 of 1977 and F.M.A. No.1 of 1977 are said to be the owners of ships and their ships carry cargo and passengers between various ports and in course of their voyages their ships call at various ports of India including Calcutta. The appellant No.1 in F.M.A No. 28 of 1977 is a steamer agent at Calcutta of the American Export Lines Incorporated. The appellant No.2 is the Shipping Manager of the appellant No.1. The ships of the principal of the appellant No.2 from time to time call at the port of Calcutta. The Registering Officer and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central), Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner, Calcutta had served notices upon each of the appellants stating that with effect from 10th February, 1971 all the provision of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 had come into force. The Central Government had fixed 31st December, 1972 as the date before which every principal employer of an establishment to which the Act applied shall make an application to the said Registering Officer for registration of the establishment. The Registering Officer by his said letter advised the appellants to take necessary action to get their establishments registered forthwith or to show-cause within 7 days as to why legal action should not be taken against them under the said Act. Tue appellants had written separate letters to the Registering Officer inter alia contending that the said Act was not applicable, to them and as such registration of their establishments was not required under the Act. There was further correspondence between the parties. Thereafter, the appellants had filed writ petitions in this Court and three Rules were issued. As already stated, M.M. Dutt, J. discharged the said Rules and against the said judgment these appeals have been preferred. 2. There was further correspondence between the parties. Thereafter, the appellants had filed writ petitions in this Court and three Rules were issued. As already stated, M.M. Dutt, J. discharged the said Rules and against the said judgment these appeals have been preferred. 2. The preamble of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 states that it is an Act to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and to provide for their Abolition in certain circumstances and for matters connected therewith. Sub-section (4) of Section 1 provides that the Act shall apply:- (a) to every establishment in which twenty or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the proceeding twelve months as contract labour; (b) to every contractor who employees or who employed on any day of the proceeding twelve months twenty or more workmen. Under the proviso to said Sub-section the appropriate government has been authorised to apply the provisions of the Act to establishments and contractors employing such number of workmen less than twenty as may be specified. Sub-section (5) of Section 1 excludes application of the said Act to establishments in which work only or an intermittent or casual nature is performed. Under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of section 1 the appropriate government may decide the question whether work performed in an establishment is of an intermittent or casual nature and its decision shall be final. Explanation to sub-section (5) specified the work which shall not be deemed to be of an intermittent nature. Section 2(1) (e) of the Act contains the following definition of the expression “establishment”:- (i) any office or department Government or a local authority, or (ii) any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on. 3. Mr. Ginwalla learned advocate for the appellants, has submitted before us that none of the appellants has an establishment within the meaning of the Act. The ships owned by the appellants of F.M.A. No. 28 of 1977 and F.M.A. No.1 of 1977 and the ships of which the appellant No.1 of F M.A. No. 28 of 1977 is the Agent cannot be treated 118 the establishments within the meaning of the Act. When their ships are in port, their cargo are unloading and loaded and generally various works have to be carried out on the said vessels. When their ships are in port, their cargo are unloading and loaded and generally various works have to be carried out on the said vessels. Such work, apart from loading and unloading of cargo include, repairs, keeping watch, supplying fuel and stores etc. The, work of loading and unloading of the cargo is normally carried out by stevedores for the purpose employ workers registered by the Dock Labour Board under the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956. The work of repairs is normally entrusted to ship repairing companies and petty reapirs are carried out by the labours engaged by contractors. According to the appellants such workers are not of a permanent but of an intermittent nature and such works are carried out actually on Board or in the neighbourhood of a vessel in the premises which are under the control and management of the Calcutta Port Trust. 4. Mr. Ginwalla submitted that a ship in a port of call cannot be considered a “place where industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried out”. A Ship while in a port may occupy a place but the ship itself is not a place. Mr. Ginwalla has further submitted that the expression ‘place” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e)(ii) connotes a stationary place and not a moving thing like a ship Mr. Ginwalla has submitted that Chapter-V of the act contains certains provisions for the welfare and health of contract labour. In a moving thing like a ship not having a fixed location, it would be impossible to provide the said not having a fixed location, it would be impossible to provide the said facilities for contract labour. Mr. Ginwalla; the learned advocate for the appellants, has also submitted that in relation to the appellants the Central Government was not the appropriate government within the meaning of section 2(1) (a) of the contract for the respondents, has contested the above proposition of law urged on behalf of the appellants. But, the stand taken by the respondents But, the stand taken by the respondents in these appeals is slightly different from their stand in the trial court. But, the stand taken by the respondents But, the stand taken by the respondents in these appeals is slightly different from their stand in the trial court. The respondents in paragraph (4) of their affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by P. P. Kanthan 3491 (w) of 1974 submitted that the establishments of the petitioners of the three Civil Rules were permanent in nature and when their ship arrived at the Calcutta Port the work of loading and unloading of cargo, shifting of vessels from one birth for repairs and arranging for Supplying fuel and stores were being carried on by labourers employed by their contractors. The watchmen employed in their vessels were also engaged through contraction. The said deponent in paragraph (9) of his affidavit-in-opposition stated "I say that the ship is not a place of business but the work carried on in the ship on behalf of the establishment would be treated as the establishments work on the site. I further say that the work site is an establishment and the works at the site are being carried on under the supervision and control of the petitioner’s establishment through the contract labour received the payment either directly or through contractors”. The deponent in the said paragraph (9) further contended that the establishment of each of the petitioners is projected into three ships when they came to the Calcutta Port. Mr. Das, learned advocate for the respondents, had submitted that the ships either in respect of which the appellants are owners or agents while birthed in Calcutta Port would be establishments within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. 5. The Supreme Court in (1) M/s. Gammon India Ltd. v. Union of India Others, AIR 1974 SC 960 , upheld the validity of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. 1970. The petitioners in M/s. Gammon India Ltd. carried on business of contended that the contractors within the definition of the Act and the workmen employed in connection within the work of the establishment. According to the petitioners, the work of the establishment is not only at the place where the business, trade or industry of the establishment is carried on but also the actual business, trade or industry of the establishment is carried on but also the actual business, trade or industry of the establishment” in Section 2(B) of the Act. According to the petitioners, the work of the establishment is not only at the place where the business, trade or industry of the establishment is carried on but also the actual business, trade or industry of the establishment is carried on but also the actual business, trade or industry of the establishment” in Section 2(B) of the Act. By way of illustration it was said that if a banking company which is an establishment is carried on its business at Delhi employed the petitioners to construct a building at Allahabad, the building to be constructed is not the work of the bank. It was said that the only work of the bank as an establishment is banking work and, therefore, the work of construction of the building was not the banking work of the establishment. Therefore, the petitioners contended that the workmen employed by them were not workmen in connection with the work of the establishment. The Supreme Court rejected the said contentions of the petitioners as unsound. According to the Supreme Court, when the banking company employed the petitioners to construct a building, the petitioners were in relation to the establishment contractor who undertook to produce a given result in the bank through contract labour. To accede to the petitioner’s contention that the construction work which is away from the place where the industry, trade, business of the establishment is carried on is not the work of the establishment is to render the words “work of the establishment” devoid of ordinary meaning. The construction of the building is the work of the establishment. The building is the property of the establishment. That is why a workman is deemed to be employed as contract labour in connection with the work of establishment. The place where business or trade or industry or manufacture or occupation is carried on is not synonymous with “the work of the establishment” when a contractor employs contract labour in connection with the work of the establishment. The error of the petitioners lies in equating the work of the establishment with the actual work of the business, industry or trade is carried on and the actual work of the business, industry or trade. The Supreme Court in paragraph (13) of its judgment proceeded to hold that the site chosen for the building is the work site of the establishment. The Supreme Court in paragraph (13) of its judgment proceeded to hold that the site chosen for the building is the work site of the establishment. The work site is the place where incompletion of construction, the business of the establishment will be carried on. Therefore, the work at the site is understood as including the work site. The Supreme Court in M/s. Gammon India Ltd. v. Union of India & Others (supra), also considered the scope and effect of the different sections of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Central rules made thereunder. The Supreme Court held that the said Act was an intravires piece of legislation. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 has not given any definition of the word “place”. Therefore, in interpreting the said term the court may consider the intention of the legislature by reference to the context and the object and purpose of enacting the aforesaid Act. The Supreme Court in M/s. Gammon India Ltd. v. Union of India & Others (supra), observed that the condition of contract labour had been engaging the attention of various committees for a long time. The benefits conferred by the said Act and the Rules are social welfare legislative measure. The preamble of the Act states that it has been enacted to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and to provide for its abolition in certain circumstances. Therefore, in interpreting the expression “place” occurring in Section 2(1)(e), above facts and circumstances should be borne in mind. 6. The expression “place” is a word of indefinite import “which” can cover anything from a pin-head to the universe according to the context in which it is used. (vide observations of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in (2) Harrisons and Crossfield Ltd., Quilon v. Municipal Council Kottayam, AIR 1958 Kerala 69 at page 71), In the context of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 the expression “place” means “the three-dimensional compass of a material object” (vide Webseter’s 7th New Collegiate Dictionary). Any object for the time being covering the surface and where industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on would be a place under Section 2(1)(a) (1)(ii). A ship in a port is for the time being stationary and occupies a definite place convering the surface of the earth covered by water. Any object for the time being covering the surface and where industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation is carried on would be a place under Section 2(1)(a) (1)(ii). A ship in a port is for the time being stationary and occupies a definite place convering the surface of the earth covered by water. A ship undergoing major repairs may be even placed in a dry dock. The appellants either as principal or as agent may carry on shipping business. Loading and unloading of a ship, engagement of watchman of ship’s cargo or employment of contractors for major and minor repairs of a ship would be parts of the shiping business carried on by the appellants. A ship in a port would be a work site and the workmen employed for such loading and unloading of the cargo, security, repairs to the ship would be all in connection with the business or trade of the appellants. 7. It is not relevant that a ship may move from one port to another port of call because we are not required to consider whether a moving ship while on motion is a establishment or not. The only question is whether a ship while it remains anchored or birthed in a port is a place so as to come within ambit of the definition “establishment” given in Section 2(1)(e) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In our view, the learned Single Judge rightly held that such a stationary ship occupied a part of the space and there was no reason why such a ship cannot be said to be a place under Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Act. Mr. Ginwalla, learned advocate for the appellants, submitted that it would be impossible for the owners or agents of a ship to make provisions for welfare and health of the contract labour specified in the different sections of Chapter-V of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The docks in which a ship may be birthed is controlled by the Port Authorities and the ship owners, agents would be unable to provide for example facilities for canteens rest-rooms etc. In our view, the alleged defects cannot be ground for totally excluding a ship in a port from the ambit of the definition ‘establishment’ given in the above Act. In our view, the alleged defects cannot be ground for totally excluding a ship in a port from the ambit of the definition ‘establishment’ given in the above Act. The Section 34 of the Act provides that if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the official gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as appears to it to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty. Therefore, in case the Act otherwise applies to the appellants they may approach the Central Government for removal of difficulties in applying some of the provisions of the Act to their ships. 8. We may also refer to the sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 1 of the said Act which lays down the extent of the application of the Act. The applicability or otherwise of the Act would depend on two points. First, it must be an establishment of a nature specified in the Act. Secondly, the work carried on must not be intermittent or casual in nature. The explanation to sub-section (5) of Section 1 of the Act itself explains what kind of work performed in an establishment shall not be deemed to be of intermittent and seasonal in character. Sitting in writ jurisdiction we are not prepared to decide whether the works performed by workmen employed in a ship while lying in a port are intermittent in nature and seasonal in character. Under Section 1(5)(b) “If a question arises whether work performed in an establishment is of an intermittent or casual nature, the appropriate Government shall decide that question after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, and its decision, shall be final. None of the appellants has as yet applied to the appropriate Government for deciding whether the works carried on in their establishment are only of an intermittent or casual nature, the appropriate Government shall decide that question after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, and its decision, shall be final. None of the appellants has as yet applied to the appropriate Government shall decide that question after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, and its decision, shall be final. None of the appellants has as yet applied to the appropriate Government shall decide that question after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, and its decision, shall be final. None of the appellants has as yet applied to the appropriate Government for deciding whether the works carried on in their establishment are only of an intermittent or casual in nature. The same would be also a mixed question of fact and law. Therefore, although we do not propose to interfere at this stage the order passed in these appeals would be without prejudice to the rights of the appellants to apply to the appropriate Government for adjudication in terms of Section 1(5)(b) of the Act. We also keep open the question relating to the nature of the work performed in the ships in respect of which the appellants are owners or agents and also the question relating to the duration of such works. 9. We have found that a ship in a port is a place where industry, trade or business etc. is carried on. The said work site being situated in a major port prima facie the Central Government would be the appropriate Government. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss these appeals without any order as to costs. 11. We, however, stay the operation of our judgment for four months. This decision, however would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in proceedings, if any, under Section 1(5)(b) of the Act for adjudicating whether the works performed in the appellant’s establishments were of intermittent or causal nature. Ray, J. : I agree.