A. P. RAVANI, J. U. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner which is a Union of Employees of the Food Corporation of India has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia to hold that the employees of the petitioner-Union working in eleven depots of the Food Corporation situated in Gujarat State mentioned in the petition are employees of the Food Corporation of India and prayed to issue a suitable writ direction and/or order to give them necessary benefits of back wages and all other consequential benefits. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner respondent No. 1-Food Corporation of India has got about 11 depots with rail-siding viz. Sabarmati Kaligam Thrigarth Adalaj Ranip Viramgam Baroda Nadiad Palana Marida and Dasrathgaon. According to the petitioner the employees are doing the loading and unloading re-stacking breaking weighment and other incidental work including railway siding in connection with the food-grains received ant sent by the aforesaid eleven depots. This is the perennial type of work because this is one of the main objects of the Corporation to see that the food-grains are properly kept and despatched in a proper manner. According to the petitioner-Union about 1600 employees are working in the aforesaid eleven depots and they are working for last about 14 years. The said work is being done by the Corporation through various labour contractors but the contra- ctors are changed from time to time after the period of about two years or so. From 1-3-1985 as such there is no contractor though on paper the Corporation might have shown the names of some contractors. In fact the entire control and supervision was done directly by the Corporation qua its employees in the aforesaid eleven depots. It is also stated by the petitioner-Union that the contractors shown by the Corporation on record were not having any valid licence as required under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and therefore all these employees working in the eleven depots served through contractors who were not holding valid licence in the eye of law at least since 28 when the definition of the term appropriate Government under the Act was changed and therefore the employees of the petitioner-Union working at the aforesaid eleven depots be treated as the employees of the Corporation itself. According to the petitioner- Union the Corporation itself was not holding a valid Registration Certificate and also there was no valid licence of the contractors which was required in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is urged by the learned Advocate General that since the petitioner-Union made a demand for giving the employees the permanency benefits the Corporation closed eleven depots by way of illegal lock-out since March 1987 with the result that the food-grains worth crores of rupees were wasted without proper handling. According to the petitioner- Union thereafter conciliation proceedings were started wherein the petitioner-Union took the stand that after the change in the definition of term appropriate Government under the Act there is no contractor with the Corporation and in fact the payments have also been made directly by the Corporation to the employees as there was no contra- ctor having a valid licence at the relevant time as required under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It was therefore submitted on behalf of the petitioner-Union that there was no contractor in the eye of law at the relevant time for the last three years and if during that period the workers worked for the Corporation they were required to be treated as the employees of the Corporation. In view of the rival contentions of the employer and the employees the Conciliation Officer ultimately came to the conclusion that no amicable settlement could be brought about and the conciliation proceedings ended in failure. The petitioner has also annexed the failure report of the Conciliation Officer at Annexure `b to the petition. According to the petitioner with ulterior motive the just claim of the workers of the petitioner-Union at the aforesaid eleven depots is denied. ( 3 ) ON the other hand the Corporation-respondent No. 1 herein infer alia contended that it had obtained valid Registration under the Act and the contractors also obtained a valid licence and hence the contract is valid and legal and the contract labour is not entitled to be treated as direct employees of the respondent-Corporation and thus it is contended that the employees are not entitled to claim any relief from the Corporation and they can approach the contractors for redressal of their grievances. It is further submitted by the respondents that the Corporation was holding the Certificate from the State Government of Gujarat and the appropriate Government was changed from State Government to Central Government. The said Certificate was obtained on 21-5-1987 from the competent authority appointed by the Central Government which has been issued in the name of District Manager Food Corporation of India Baroda. A similar Certificate of Registration was also obtained by the District Manager Food Corpo- ration of India Sabarmati Ahmedabad on 4-6-1987. The said Certificates have been annexed by the respondents at Annexure `i collectively. Therefore according to the respondents the aforesaid documents make it absolutely clear that the Certificates of Registration were obtained by the principal employer as required by the Act on the aforesaid dates. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that though the `appropriate Government was changed from State Government to Central Government on 28-1-1986 the Certificates of Registration from the appropriate authority were taken on 21-5-1987 and 4-6-1987 and in the said Certificates the names of the contractors whom the principal employer wanted to engage have also been mentioned. According to the respondents the contractors have also obtained licences after the change of the `appropriate Government from State Government to Central Government. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Union urged that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 came into force on 10-2-1971. The object of the Act is to regulate and to improve the conditions of service of contract labour and not merely to abolish contract labour. He urged that the Act is an important piece of social legislation and it seeks to regulate the employment of contract labour and where necessary to abolish the same. It is a legislation for the welfare of labourers whose conditions of service are not at all satisfactory. He urged that the Act being a piece of social legislation for the welfare of the labourers it should be construed in such a way that it serves the object of the Act that is to say it should enhance the welfare of the labourers. He pointed out sub-sec. He urged that the Act being a piece of social legislation for the welfare of the labourers it should be construed in such a way that it serves the object of the Act that is to say it should enhance the welfare of the labourers. He pointed out sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 1 of the Act which reads as under :1 It applies : (a) to every establishment in which twenty or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months as contract labour; (b) to every contractor who employs or who employed on any day of the preceding twelve months twenty or more workmen; provided that the appropriate Government may after giving not less than two months notice of its intention so to do by notification in the Official Gazette apply the provisions of this Act to any establishment or contractor employing such number of workmen less then twenty as may be specified in the notification. Thus according to the learned Advocate General the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 are applicable to the Corporation-respondent No. 1 herein and if the Corporation intends to engage a contractor then it has to get itself registered under Sec. 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 the provisions of which are in the following terms : 7. Registration of certain establishments :- (1) Every principal employer of an establishment to which this Act applies shall within such period as the appropriate Government may by notification in the Official Gazette fix in this behalf with respect to establishments generally or with respect to any class of them make an application to the registering officer in the prescribed manner for registration of the establishment. Provided that the registering officer may entertain any such application for registration after expiry of the period fixed In this behalf if the registering officer is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. (2) If the application for registration is complete in all respects the registering officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of the establishment a Certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed. He also pointed out Sec. 9 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 which spells out the effect of non-registration. (2) If the application for registration is complete in all respects the registering officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of the establishment a Certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed. He also pointed out Sec. 9 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 which spells out the effect of non-registration. This provision is in the following terms : 9 Effect of non-registration :- No principal employer of an establishment to which this applies shall (a) in the case of an establishment required to be registered under Sec. 7 but which has not been registered within the time fixed for the purpose under that section (b) in the case of an establishment the registration in respect of which has been revoked under Sec. 8 employ contract labour in the establishment after the expiry of the period referred to in Cl. (a) or after the revocation of registration referred to in Cl. (b) as the case may be. The learned Advocate General contended that a perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Sec. 9 would show that if the principal emplo- yer of any establishment who is required to secure a registration certificate under Sec. 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 fails to do so or his registration certificate is revoked under Sec. 8 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 then such principal employer shall not employ contract labour in the establishment after the period indicated in clause (a) and clause (b ). He submitted that Sec. 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 provides that no contractor shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accord- ance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing officer. The provisions of Sec. 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 ate in the following terms : 12 Licensing of contractors :- (1) With effect from such date as the appropriate Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint no contractor to whom this Act applies shall undertake or execute any work through contract our except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing Officer. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act a licence under sub-sec (1) may contain such conditions including in particular conditions as to hours of work fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with the rules if any made under Sec. 35 and shall be issued on payment of such fees and on the deposit of such sum if any as security for the due performance of the conditions as may be prescribed. According to the learned Advocate General Sec. 13 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 provides for grant of licences and Sec. 14 thereof provides for revocation suspension and amendment of licences. Sections 16 17 18 and 19 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 envisage providing of faci- lities to the workers in the establishment employing contract labour. Section 20 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 makes principal employer finally responsible for providing the facilities envisaged by Secs. 16 to 19. If the contractor fails to do so Sec. 21 fixes the responsibility on the principal employer for paying the wages to the workers. The learned Advocate General also drew our attention to Sec. 29 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 which inter alia provides that the principal employer shall maintain such registers and records giving such particulars of contract labour employed the nature of work performed by the contract labour the rates of wages paid to the contract labour and such other particulars in such form as maybe prescribed. Section 29 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 is in the following terms : 29 Registers and other records to be maintained :- (1) Every principal employer and every contractor shall maintain such registers and records giving such particulars of contract labour employed the nature of work performed by the contract labour the rates of wages paid to the contract labour and such other particulars in such form as may be prescribed. (2) Every principal employer and every contractor shall keep exhibited in such manner as may be prescribed within the premises of the establishment where the contract labour is employed notice in the proscribed form containing parti- culars about the hoars of work nature of duty and such other information as may be prescribed. (2) Every principal employer and every contractor shall keep exhibited in such manner as may be prescribed within the premises of the establishment where the contract labour is employed notice in the proscribed form containing parti- culars about the hoars of work nature of duty and such other information as may be prescribed. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate General after referring to the aforesaid sections urged that Sec. 2 (a) of the Act was amended by Act No. 14 of 1986 which came into force on 28-1-1986 wherein the definition of appropriate Government is given and it reads as under : (A) appropriate Government means.- (i) in relation to an establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is the Central Government the Central Government; (ii) in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situate. Now so far as the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is concerned the definition of appropriate Government in so far as it is relevant our purpose is as follows : 2 appropriate Government means. (i) in relation to aay industrial dispute concerning any Industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or the Food Corporation of India established under Sec. 3 the Central Government and (ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute the State Government. Thus according to the learned Advocate General before 28/01/1986 the appropriate Government under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 was the State Government in respect of the contractor employed by the Food Corporation of India. However from 28-1-1986 the said Act came to be amended and the appropriate Government under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 in respect of the establish- ment of the Food Corporation of India became the Central Government. ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate General urged that in the present case after the change in the definition of appropriate Government the Food Corporation was not holding valid Certificate of Registration under Sec. 7 issued by the Central Government till 21-5-1987. Not only that but the contractors who were given the contract by the Food Corporation were also not holding valid licences provided under Sec. 12 of the Act from the competent authority appointed by the Central Government. Not only that but the contractors who were given the contract by the Food Corporation were also not holding valid licences provided under Sec. 12 of the Act from the competent authority appointed by the Central Government. Thus every worker who worked for the principal on such date to whom the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regula- tion and Abolition) Act 1970 are attracted is required to be treated as the worker of the principal employer. He submitted that the establish- ment ought to have secured a Certificate of Registration after 28-1-1986 from the Central Government and ought to have employed contract labour through a licensed contractor who may be holding a valid licence under Sec. 12 from the competent authority appointed by the Central Government. According to him even if the Corporation were not possessing requisite Certificate of Registration from the Central Government then also it cannot escape its liability qua the workers employed by the contractor unless it is further established that the contractor employed by the principal employer possessed the requisite licence from the competent authority envisaged by Sec. 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the provisions of the Act it is evident that (i) the principal employer should obtain a Certificate of Registration and (ii) the workmen can be employed on contract labour basis only through licensed contractor. The Certificate of Registration is required to be obtained by the principal employer issued by the appropriate Government under the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act. The licence is to be obtained by the contractors under the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Act. The workmen can be employed as contract labour only through licensed contractors. Unless both these conditions are complied with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 would not be attracted. Both these conditions are required to be fulfilled if one wishes to avail of the provisions of the Act. Even if one of the conditions is not complied with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 would not be attracted. Therefore in a situation wherein either of these two condi- tions is not satisfied the position would be that a workmen employed by an intermediary would be deemed to have been employed by the principal employer. Therefore in a situation wherein either of these two condi- tions is not satisfied the position would be that a workmen employed by an intermediary would be deemed to have been employed by the principal employer. This is the position which emerges from the examination and analysis of the provisions of the Act and the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 8 ) IN support of his submission the learned Advocate General has relied upon the following decisions :1 1985 (1) LLJ 492 (The Workmen of Best and Crompton Industries Ltd. v. The Management ). 2 1986 (2) SLR 454 (F. C. I. Loading and Unloading Workers Union v. Food Corporation of India ). 3 1987 (2) SLR 678 (Food Corporation of India Haryana Region v. The Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh ). ( 9 ) IN the present case it is an undisputed position that the Certificate of Registration was obtained by the principal employer i. e. the District Manager F. C. I. Baroda on 21/05/1987 Similar Certificate was also obtained by the District Manager F. C. I. Sabarmati Ahmedabad on 4/06/1987 Thus from 28/01/1986 till 21/05/1987 (in case of Baroda Division) and upto 4/06/1987 (in case of Sabarmati Ahmedabad Division) there was no valid Certificate of Registration. Thus the condition of obtaining registration as provided under Sec. 7 of the Act remained unfulfilled. ( 10 ) SIMILARLY as regards the position of the licence obtained by the contractors or in favour of the contractors as provided under Sec. 12 of the Act is concerned the following picture emerges :from the aforesaid facts and the legal position discussed it becomes clear that for certain periods the principal employer i. e. the Food Corporation of India did not possess Certificate of Registration as required under the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act. Similarly the contractors through whom the workmen were engaged also did not possess licence issued under Sec. 12 of the Act by the appropriate Government for certain periods. Similarly the contractors through whom the workmen were engaged also did not possess licence issued under Sec. 12 of the Act by the appropriate Government for certain periods. Therefore in relation to this period the workmen can very well claim that the workmen wore employed directly by the principal employer i. e. F. C. I. ( 11 ) THE decision of the Madras High Court in the case of The Workmen of Best and Crompton Industries Ltd. v. The Management reported in 1985 (1) LLJ 492 lays down that workmen engaged by contractor working for management without holding valid licence would be workmen engaged by the management itself. ( 12 ) THE decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of F. C. I. Loading and Unloading Workers Union v. Food Corporation of India reported in 1986 (2) SLR 454 lays down that in absence of Certificate of Registration by the Corporation provided under the Act to employ contract labour workmen of the contractor will be considered to be workmen of the principal employer. ( 13 ) IN the case of Food Corporation of India Haryana Region v. The Presiding officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Chandigarh and Anr. reported in 1987 (2) SLR 678 the Punjab and Haryana High Court has laid down that every worker who works for a principal employer to whom the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 are attracted is to be treated as the worker of the principal employer unless two conditions are satisfied; (1) that the establishment has secured a Certificate of Registration for the relevant period and (2) it had employed contract labour through a licensed contractor. If either of the conditions is not satisfied then the contract labour employed through the contractor shall be treated to be a `worker of the employer. ( 14 ) THE aforesaid decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court and it is an undisputed position that the Supreme Court has not entertained the S. L. P. and has rejected the same at the admission stage only. ( 15 ) WE are in respectful agreement with the principles laid down in the decisions of the Madras Karnataka and Punjab and Haryana High Courts. ( 15 ) WE are in respectful agreement with the principles laid down in the decisions of the Madras Karnataka and Punjab and Haryana High Courts. ( 16 ) THE Food Corporation of India was set up under the Food Corporation Act 1964 It can without incurring the liability of employing workmen where work is of an intermittent nature. employ a contractor for supply of labour or for handling certain works of the Corporation. Without in any way reflecting upon the bona fides of a public sector Corporation to engage a contractor for supply of labour treating it as a commodity we may assume that the Corporation can engage a contractor for supply of labour. The Act shows that the Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of Food Corporation for the purpose of trading in food-grains and other foodstuffs and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. By Sec. 3 the Central Government was authorised to establish a Corporation to be known as the Food Corporation of India. Section 5 provides for the initial capital and for acquiring power to increase the capital in such manner as the Central Government or the State Government as the case may be may determine initial capital being provided by the Central Government. Section 7 provides for the constitution of the Board of Directors. Tbe management of the Corporation is to vest in a Board of Directors and the Board of Directors in discharging its functions shall act amongst others according to the instructions on questions of policy rs may be given by the Central Government. The annual net profit of the Food Corporation of India has to be paid to the Central Government (Sec. 33 Every Food Corporation has to submit to the Central Government an annual report of its working and affairs and the same has to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament. Section 45 confers power on the Food Corporation to make regulations not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules made thereunder to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Section 45 confers power on the Food Corporation to make regulations not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules made thereunder to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by Sec. 45 (1) the regulations must provide for amongst others the methods of appointment the conditions of service ani scales of pay of the officers and employees of a Food Corporation other than the Secretary of the Food Corporation of India. ( 17 ) FROM the perusal of the scheme of the Act it is evident that the Food Corporation of India is an instrumentality of the State comprehended in the expression `other authority in Art. 12 of the Constitution and is subject amongst other things to Part III of the Constitution. If so it must act fairly so as not to violate Art 14 of the Constitution. ( 18 ) NO doubt it was open to the Corporation to engage contractors having valid licences for handling of food-grains but the question in the present case is whether once some workmen became the workmen of the Corporation as hereinbefore discussed was it open to the Corporation to continue the said contractors and treat its workmen as workmen of the contractors. The answer is in the negative for the reasons hereinbefore discussed. An assertion in the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill which was enacted into the law may help the Corporation in freeing itself from the traditional master- servant relationship and help it in becoming an ideal employer where exploitation in any form is wholly eschewed. The statement reads as under :the system of employment of contract labour lends itself is various abuses. The question of its abolition has been under the conside- ration of Government for a long time. In the Second Five Years Plan the Planning Commission made certain recommendations namely undertaking of studies to ascertain the extent of the problem of contract labour progressive abolition of system and improvement of service conditions of contrast labour where the abolition was not possible. Thus the Act was enacted with a view to abolishing wherever possible or practicable the employment of contract labour. The proposed Bill aimed at abolition of contract labour in respect of such categories as maybe notified. Thus the Act was enacted with a view to abolishing wherever possible or practicable the employment of contract labour. The proposed Bill aimed at abolition of contract labour in respect of such categories as maybe notified. In the present case it is clear that there is breach of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 We say no more have and except saying that where the law helps such anti-labour practices must be thwarted or nipped in the bud. ( 19 ) NOW the question arises as to what relief may be granted to the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner is that it may be declared that the workmen who are members of the petitioner-Union and who are working in the eleven depots of the Food Corporation of India situated in the State of Gujarat are the employees of the Food Corporation of India and they are entitled to the benefits of back wages and other consequential benefits ensuing from the declaration that may be made. Would it be proper to grant the aforesaid relief in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the factual data placed on record by both the sides is vague and imprecise. Moreover whatever materials placed by the petitioner on record is not admitted by the otherside. Thus there is inadequate material on record and whatever material is there on record is not undisputed. On the basis of such material it will not be possible to come to the conclusion that all the members of the petitioner-Union were employed during the period when the two necessary conditions (or either of them of obtaining registration by the principal employer and of obtaining licence by the contractor as required under the relevant provisions of the Act) were not fulfilled. In this view of the matter the prayer as made in the petition cannot be granted. However we would like to make suitable observations and give appropriate directions in this behalf. ( 20 ) IN the result it is declared that during the period when the two conditions of obtaining registration under Sec. 7 by the principal employer and of holding licence by the contractor are not complied with and the workmen are employed by contractor the workmen can claim to be direct employees of the principal employer. ( 20 ) IN the result it is declared that during the period when the two conditions of obtaining registration under Sec. 7 by the principal employer and of holding licence by the contractor are not complied with and the workmen are employed by contractor the workmen can claim to be direct employees of the principal employer. However in view of the inadequate and scanty material on record it is not possible to give a declaration as to which workman has become direct employee of the respondent. Food Corporation of India. Therefore it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner-Union and/or for individual workman to make a representation to the respondent-Corporation within a period of sixty days from the date of this judgment i. e. on or before February 6 1990 giving necessary details as regard the employment of the workman and the place at which he worked and under whom he worked and claim necessary benefits. If and when such representation is made the same shall be decided by the respondent-Corporation within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the same in the light of the principles laid down and the observations mate in this judgment. In case the decision is against the workman the workman concerned or the petitioner-Union will be at liberty to move the appropriate authority under the relevant labour laws. for redressing his grievence. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. (KMV) declaration made. .