ANIL K. SEN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent which arises out of a writ proceeding and is directed against an order dated February 29, 1980 passed by a learned single Judge of this court dismissing a writ petition. The writ petitioners are the appellants. ( 2 ) WRIT petitioners are 80 workmen who had been engaged by the Hindusthan Cables Ltd. , though not directly but through contractors; or in other words, the services of the appellants were being utilized by the company, viz. Hindusthan Cables Ltd. as contract labour. A grievance was made on their behalf to the effect that though engaged as contract labor they were made to discharge duties of perennial nature connected with the business of the company. According to the appellants such engagement of the appellants through the contractor was intended only to deprive them of the ordinary benefits of direct appointment by the company. It was further claimed that such employment of the appellants comes within the prohibition of section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. There is no denial that the dispute raised on behalf of the appellants by the Union was enquired into once by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Asansol who made a report that a case has been made out for directing prohibition of employment of contract labour in terms of section 10 as aforesaid. That report had been an annexure to the writ application. That report having been forwarded to the Labour Commissioner, a conference was called sometime in the year 1970; but no such conference being held the matter remained unattended since then. In that background the appellants on March 29, 1979 made a demand of justice and move the writ petition with different prayers including a prayer for issue of a mandate upon the State of West Bengal to prohibit respondent No. 3 from employing the appellants as contract labour and for a further direction that the appellants may be made regular workmen of the company. ( 3 ) RULE Nisi being issued the State of West Bengal appeared and filed an affidavit. All the basic allegations could not be disputed on behalf of the State of West Bengal. ( 3 ) RULE Nisi being issued the State of West Bengal appeared and filed an affidavit. All the basic allegations could not be disputed on behalf of the State of West Bengal. What was merely said in paragraph 7 of the opposition was to the effect that the enquiry report referred to by the appellant being received from the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Asansol was forwarded to the Labour Commissioner and it has been decided to place the matter before the State Advisory Contract Labour Board for its consideration in its second meeting. It is further said that under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the contract labour cannot be abolished without the consultation of the State Advisory Contract Labour Board. On behalf of the respondent No. 3, the application was being contested on different grounds. ( 4 ) THIS application was disposed of by the learned Trial Judge when it was dismissed solely on the ground that section 10 of the Act having left the matter to the discretion of the State Government, no writ of mandamus could be issued constituting interference with exercise of discretion conferred by the Statute. Obviously, the merits has not been looked into by the learned Trial Judge since it was though that no writ can be issued directing the State Government to carry out the provisions of a Statute which is discretionary in nature. It is the correctness of the view taken by the learned Trial Judge which is the subject matter of the challenge now before us. ( 5 ) HAVING heard Mr. Chatterjee in support of this appeal and on a careful consideration of the legal position, we are not in a position to agree with the learned Judge entirely. Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 provides as follows :" 10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Prohibition of employment of contract labour.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. (2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors, such as - (a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment; (b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment ; (c) whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto ; (d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole time workmen. Explanation - If a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final. " ( 6 ) WE may agree with the learned Trial Judge that section 10 confers discretion upon the State Government either to prohibit or not to do so after consultation with the State Board. This is a part of social legislation which is intended to safeguard the interest of the labour and protect them from exploitation in some form or other. Whether in a particular case the State Government would prohibit engagement of contract labour or not may lie within the discretion of the State Government, but there is no legal sanction for not attending to the complaint made and exercising the discretion either way. The obligation to exercise the discretion one way or the other in terms of the statutory provisions is mandatory. Had the position not been so, the whole object of the enactment would be frustrated. ( 7 ) IN the present case the learned Trial Judge has missed the real nature of the complaint put forward in the writ petition. The obligation to exercise the discretion one way or the other in terms of the statutory provisions is mandatory. Had the position not been so, the whole object of the enactment would be frustrated. ( 7 ) IN the present case the learned Trial Judge has missed the real nature of the complaint put forward in the writ petition. The complaint is that there is a case made out by them for issuance of a prohibition in terms of section 10 of the said Act which has been accepted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on enquiry. The matter being referred to the State Government it has been kept unattended over the years from the year 1970. It is the failure on the part of the State Government to discharge their statutory obligation to exercise the discretion in one way or the other which has been the matter of complaint. It is no answer, in our opinion, therefore, to reject the application by saying that since the Statute gives a discretion to the State Government the Court cannot issue any mandate. The Court will not grant a mandate either to issue a prohibition or not to do so; but the Court is entitled to issue a mandate upon the State Government to discharge their statutory obligation of deciding the complaint one way or the other as required under section 10 of the Act. ( 8 ) IN that view this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Judge being set aside we allow the writ petition in part and direct the State Government to dispose of the matter referred to them by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Asansol in accordance with section 10 of the Act within three months from the date of service of the writ upon the State Government. We, however, make it clear that the State Government will be absolutely at liberty to exercise its discretion unfettered by any of the observations made in the present judgment, but they are required to dispose of the matter in one way or the other. ( 9 ) THE appeal therefore succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The rule issued on writ petition is made absolute to the extent as in our judgment. ( 9 ) THE appeal therefore succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The rule issued on writ petition is made absolute to the extent as in our judgment. Let an appropriate writ be issued now upon the State Government at an early date and a signed copy of the operative part of the order be handed over to the Advocates on Records of the parties. All parties to act on the signed copy of the minutes of this order. No order as to costs. S. K. Mukherjee, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.