ORDER 1. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners nos. 2 to 158 being members of the petitioner no 1 are engaged in loading unloading, handling and transporting of food materials in the godown of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as FCI) and at different railway sidings and yards and are doing other anciliary works. The petitioners are working for more than 15 years in this job under the respondents. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 2 engages every year handling and transporting contractors for loading and unloading of food materials but the petitioners services are always being continued and they are rendering uninterrupted services on the basis of renewal of contracts every year without any break under the contract. It is also the submission of the petitioners that the contractors under whom the petitioners are working are not engaged a per Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, inasmuch as the Food Corporation of India is not registered principal employer under s. 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 nor are the contractors required to take licence under s. 12, of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 hereinafter referred to a, the said Act). It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since no licence has been taken out either as principal employer by the FCI or by the contractors petitioners nos. 2 to 158 cannot he termed as contractor laboars under the said Act, but should he treated as direct employees of the FCI. It is the contention of the petitioners that as the FCI engages more than 20 hands in its employment. it is covered by the said Act in case it engages contract labour and that since the FCI is not registered under the said Act, so FCI as the petitioners nos. 2 to 158 are concerned they are to be treated as direct employees of the FCI. It has been specifically alleged in the petition that although contractors came and went but the labourers remained constant for the last 15 years. The contention of the petitioners is that the contractors are merely intermediaries and the employers of the petitioners are FCI. The petitioners have to maintain work schedule as fixed by the respondent no. 2. It has also been alleged that the respondent no. The contention of the petitioners is that the contractors are merely intermediaries and the employers of the petitioners are FCI. The petitioners have to maintain work schedule as fixed by the respondent no. 2. It has also been alleged that the respondent no. 2 has •economic control over the petitioners subsistence, continuance of employment through their agencies or contractors. It has been further alleged that the petitioners' entry into respondents' office premises vis-a-vis their work schedule is subject to the consent and approval of the respondents in other words, the respondents have ultimate say both in appointments and termination of the service of the petitioners. It has been further alleged that so FCI as the petitioners are concerned the contractors have no part to play bat only to carry out the instructions given by the principal employer that is the FCI. The contractors act under the supervision and total economic control of the FCI. The wages paid by the FCI to the labours are only channelled through the said contractors, then one contractor goes out and a new contractor comes in the labourers stay as it is and do not go out with the contractors. According to the petitioners contractors come and go hut the employer employee relationship between the respondent no. 2 and the petitioners remain constant. It is also the contention of the petitioners that they are paid less than the regular employees of the FCI although in fact the petitioners are working as regular employees and they deny the same work as regular employee. In short the respondents are violating the principle of equal pay for equal work and denying the petitioners their basic livelihood. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted further that the services of the petitioners as labourers depend very much on the part of the FCI authorities. If the FCI authorities decide not to maintain the labour force they will be out of employment. In fact the contractors come and go and one contractor may be replaced by another contractor but the petitioners being labourers are continuously rendering service under different contractors. Although this is the specific case made out in the petition the said fact has not been denied in affidavit in-opposition. It has also been submitted by Mr. Sengupta that if FCI for any reason chokes off; the petitioners would be virtually laid off. Although this is the specific case made out in the petition the said fact has not been denied in affidavit in-opposition. It has also been submitted by Mr. Sengupta that if FCI for any reason chokes off; the petitioners would be virtually laid off. - The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate direct relationship ex-contrary of no consequence. In support of his contention the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon a judgment and decision in the case of Hussainbhai v. The Alath Factory Tazhilali Union & Ors. reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1410. In the aforesaid decision the facts inter alia are that the petitioner before the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition is a factory owner manufacturing ropes. A number of workmen were engaged to make ropes from within the factory, but those workmen, according to the petitioner, were hired by the contractors who had executed agreements with the petitioner to get such work done. It was the contention of the petitioner that the workmen were not his workmen but the contractor's workmen. The industrial award, made on a reference by the State Government, was attacked on this ground. The learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court held that the petitioner was the employer and the members of the respondent union were employees under the petitioner. Division Bench of the High Court also upheld the stand and the petitioner being aggrieved made the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the question who is an employee and in that context referred to its earlier judgment in Ganesh Geeri's case reported in AIR 1974 SC 1832 : (1974 1) Lab. LJ 367, wherein the Supreme Court considered British and American rulings to hold that mere contracts are not decisive and the complex of consideration relevant to the relationship is different. Indian Justice, beyond Atlantic liberalism has a rule of law which runs to the aid of rule of' life. The Supreme Court held dealing with the principles decided in the aforesaid decision that the true test is that where a worker or ground of workers, labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill and continued employment. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill and continued employment. If he, for my reason chokes off the workers is virtually laid off The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractor is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the management, not immediate contractor. Myriad devices, half hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like, may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare obligation on the real employer, based on Articles 38, 39, 42, 43 and 43A of the Constitution. The court must be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearances. 2. If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit an enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or the make believe trapping of detachment from the management cannot snap in real-life bond. The story may vary but the inference defies ingenuinity. The liability cannot be shaken off Relying upon the aforesaid decision the learned Advocate submitted that although the petitioners are working under different contractors for long 15 years but they are really rendering services without any break to FCI, and are depending fully for their livelihood on F.C.I. If F.C.I. chokes off they will be thrown out of employment without any means of livelihood. Under such circumstances the learned Advocate submitted that following the principles decided in the Case of Hussainbhai v. The Alath Factory Tezhilali Union & Ors. (supra) the petitioners should be treated as direct employees and the liability cannot be shaken off by the F.C.I. authorities. It has been contended that since there is no registration by the F.CI, so far as the petitioners nos. 2 to 158 are concerned, the petitioners are the direct employees of the F.C I. The petitioner also referred to memo no. It has been contended that since there is no registration by the F.CI, so far as the petitioners nos. 2 to 158 are concerned, the petitioners are the direct employees of the F.C I. The petitioner also referred to memo no. DM/W/L(70)(87(3599 dated 14/15.187 issued by the District manager, Suburban that the provision of the said Act was not followed till that date date and as such the F.C.I. was precluded from employing contract labour and the petitioners should be treated as direct employees of the F.C.I. The said fact has not been denied in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent. It is the contention of the petitioners that since the Contract Labour (Regulation and Aboiition) Act, 1970 was not followed, the petitioners are deemed to be direct employees of F.C.I, 3. In support of his contention the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions : (1) Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries Ltd. represented by the General Secretary of the Socialist Workers, Union, Madras. And 1. The Management, Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd., Madras-55 2. The Presiding Officer-II. Additional Labour Court, Madras 3. The Workmen of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd. represented hy the Secretary, Madras reported in 1985)) LLJ 492 (2) Food Corporation of India Haryana Region, Sector 17, Chandigarh v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Chandigarh & Anr. reported in 1987(2, SLR 678. 4. Mr. Kanan Ghosh learned Advocate for the FCI. submitted that there are two sets of contractors engaged in F.C.I. godowns, namely, one set of contractors engaged in loading and unloading and handling of goods, the other set is engaged in transportation of foodgrains. Petitioner no. 1 is an association of transport contractors and the other petitioners are engaged under different transport contractors. They are not directly engaged for handling jobs of loading and unloading of goods in F.C.I. godowns. The learned Advocate further submitted that it has not been mentioned in the petition where such petitioners were engaged. It is not clear from the petition according to the learned Advocate how the petitioners are engaged. Identity of the petitioners are not also clearly established in which the petitioners are really engaged and with what contractor has not really been established. It is not clear from the petition according to the learned Advocate how the petitioners are engaged. Identity of the petitioners are not also clearly established in which the petitioners are really engaged and with what contractor has not really been established. The learned Advocate further submitted that s. 1 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 will not apply in the instant case and no licence is required for contractor as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the petition. Moreover, it has been submitted that the said Act is not applicable to workers of different contractors. In the facts of the instant case, Mr. Ghosh learned Advocate further submitted, that no licence is required for contractors as urged by the petitioner and s. 1 of the Contract Labour Regulation Act will not apply in the instant case. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that the disputes, if any, is really an industrial dispute and should be adjudicated by an Industrial Tribunal and this court should not interfere in writ proceeding and pass any order on the application. It has also been submitted that in a case involving similar point another learned Single Judge of this Court held that the matter should be decided by the Industrial Tribunal and declined to interfere. He further submitted that similar question involving Food Corporation of India is pending for determination by the Supreme Court. 5. I have considered the submissions of the parties and the cases cited from the bar. In the case of Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries Limited represented by the General Secretary of the Socialist Workers union Madras and (1) The Management, Best & Cromptan Engineering Limited, Madras-55. (2) The Presiding Officer II. Additional Labour Court, Madras. (3) The Workmen of Best & Crompton Engineering Ltd, represented by the Secretary, Madras 600001 reported in 1985) LLJ 492, relied upon by Mr. Sengupta, it appears that the management did not requisition the services of 75 workmen after 16th October, 1978 on the ground that they were employed by the licensed contractor. This led to an industrial dispute and on a reference made of the said industrial dispute. Sengupta, it appears that the management did not requisition the services of 75 workmen after 16th October, 1978 on the ground that they were employed by the licensed contractor. This led to an industrial dispute and on a reference made of the said industrial dispute. the Labour Court rejected the contention of the management and held that the so-called contractor was a mere name lender and did not hold licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and directed the reinstatement of 75 workmen with back wages and other benefits. In the appeal the High Court held the disputes of workmen in the Contract Labour Regulation Act 1970 imply that if the workmen were not hired through a contractor holding a valid licence under the Act they would be workmen employed by the management itself. If the management was aware that the contractor had no valid licence the workmen would not be the contract labour within the meaning of s. 2(2)(b) of the Act and if the management engaged the services of such workmen and paid their wages through the contractor the contractor will have no existence in the eye of law It would thus lead to the position that there is but direct relationship between the management and workmen engaged through contractor and there is an implied contract of service between the workmen and the management. The other case cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is the case of Food Corporation of India, Haryana Region Sector 17, Chandigarh v The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industries Tribunal Chandigarh & anr. reported in 1987 (2) SLR page 678. In this case the petitioner Food Corporation of India (for short the Corporation) was constituted by an Act of Parliament with the abject inter alia of procurement storage and distribution of food grains throughout the country. It functioned through its Head Office at Delhi and four Zonal Office in the Eastern, Southern and Northern Sectors. The Corporation had two separate offices, one in Punjab region and the other in Haryana region in the Northern Zone. The Corporation employed thousands of handling Mazdoors for carrying out its activities of loading and unloading either directly or indirectly through contractors. Disputes arose between the Corporation and same of such workers employed to carry out its given activities to Amritsar Depot and Nawanshahar Depot in Punjab region and Ambala Depot in Haryana region. The Corporation employed thousands of handling Mazdoors for carrying out its activities of loading and unloading either directly or indirectly through contractors. Disputes arose between the Corporation and same of such workers employed to carry out its given activities to Amritsar Depot and Nawanshahar Depot in Punjab region and Ambala Depot in Haryana region. The workers for all these three Depot alleged that they were employees of the Corporation and their services were being terminated without complying with the provisions of s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, All these three disputes came eventually to be tried by the Tribunal at Chandigarh. The Corporation inter alia took the stand before the Tribunal that the workers in question were not their employees as they were hired by its contractors, who had defective control on their work and conduct for all intents and purposes that the workers were not on its roll, and that for want of privity of contract the Corporation was not answerable in regard to the termination .of the employment .of the said workers by the contractor. In support Of its case, the Corporation put up in the witness box inter alia Assistant Manager, Sh Krishan Lal (MW, 1) and Deputy Manager, Sh. A. K. Kaley (MW-2), The tribunal an the basis of the evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that the Corporation was an 'industry' as defined by s. 2(i) .of the Act, that to it, provision of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 referred to in the said judgment as Contract Labour Act) were also applicable that the Corporation was neither registered in terms of s, 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition) Act nor it employed licensed contractor hence the employees employed by alleged contractors were to be treated a, the employees of the Corporation and the termination of their services by the alleged contractors were to be treated as having been effected by the Corporation itself and that since that was done in violation of provisions of s. 25F of the Act, and the termination of their services was, therefore, clearly illegal. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal, therefore, directed the Corporation to reinstate the workers forthwith on their original posts and star paying their usual wages with immediate effect. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal, therefore, directed the Corporation to reinstate the workers forthwith on their original posts and star paying their usual wages with immediate effect. The Corporation (petitioner) has challenged the said Award through the three separate writ petition (C.W.P. No. 4384/1986, C. P. W. No. 4857/1986 and C. P. W. No.4894/1986 arising from Reference 1. D. No. 49/1984, Reference I.D. No. 157/1983 (Delhi) and Reference I.D. No. 112/1983 (Chd.) respectively. 6. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the petition against the Corporation. The Division Bench field that the Corporation could succeed in disowning any liability qua the workmen only if it approved the fact that the workers were engaged by the licensed contractor. The Corporation had not established that fact before the Tribunal. It was held that even if it is assumed that the Corporation was possessed of a requisite certificate of registration then too it cannot e<cape its liability qua the workers employed by the contractor unless it further established that the contractor employed by the principal employer possessed the requisite license envisaged by s. 12 of the Contract Labour Act. Since the Corporation failed to establish the same it was held that the Corporation had no case on merit and the writ petitions of the Corporation were dismissed. Reference has been made to an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India Workers union Food Corporation of India & ors. In that case the petitioners brought a representative action praying for a writ of mandamus either to the union government or the State Government to extend to them the benefits of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act) and for a direction on the Corporation to pay them the same wages as are paid to the departmentalised labour and for others. The Supreme Court disposed of the, said petition with the following observations : "However, we are of the opinion that it may not be possible or proper for us to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in full on the materials on record. The materials are scanty and insufficient for a comprehensive adjudications of the claims of the petitioners and to grant them reliefs as prayed for. The materials are scanty and insufficient for a comprehensive adjudications of the claims of the petitioners and to grant them reliefs as prayed for. The Act contains provisions enabling the 'appropriate G0vernment' to get reports as to how to implement the provisions of the Act. The machinery provided for by the Act has not been brought into action in any State except the State of Madhya Pradesh. Under those circumstances, the only course open to us is to issue appropriate direction to the State Government to constitute committees under s. 5 of the Act, to make necessary enquiries, and to submit a report as to whether it would be possible to abolish contract labour in the F.C.I. Workers Union v. Food Corporation (S. K. Sen, J,) 333 Corporation altogether. In to doing we will have to exclude the State of Madhya Pradesh because the counter-affidavit filed by the State shows that necessary action is being taken under the Act. Accordingly a writ of mandamus will be issued to all the State Governments except the State of Madhya Pradesh for appointing a committee under s. 3 of the Act within three months from to day to enquire whether contract laboure in the Corporation should be abolished. The committee shall submit a report within four months of its constitution and the Government directed to take action on such report within two months thereafter the necessary expenses for the committee will be borne by the Corporation. Since the Madhya Pradesh Government has already constituted committees under s. 5, the said State is directed to ask the committees so appointed to make its report expeditiously and to take appropriate action on the report as indicated above. The Corporation will be at liberty to place materials before the committees whether it comes within the exception clause. This the writ petition is allowed as indicated above with costs to the petitioner quantified at Rs. 2,00000 payable by the Corporation. 7. The facts involved in the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court inter alia are that the contractors concerned had licence under the said Act and they wanted 10 claim the benefits under the Act which was not extended to them. 2,00000 payable by the Corporation. 7. The facts involved in the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court inter alia are that the contractors concerned had licence under the said Act and they wanted 10 claim the benefits under the Act which was not extended to them. They further wanted that they should be made direct employees of F.C.I. Their grievances mainly relate to either departmentalising them or in the alternative extending to them the benefit of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. They also wanted directions upon the appropriate Government to extend the benefits of the Act and also for direction upon the Corporation to pay them the same rates as are paid to the departmentalised labour for other relief. In the instant writ petition, however, the contractors have no licence. The said Act is not applicable and clearly on the basis of the facts as appears from record they are fully dependent upon the Food Corporation of India. In fact they cannot be treated as contractors' labours because one contractor may come and go but they continue to serve the Food Corporation of India. If the Food Corporation of India does not. have work they will also have no work. Service of the petitioners (labourers) depend very much on the put of the F.C.I. authorities. If FC.I. for any reason chokes off the petitioners would be virtually laid off. In this case the presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have intermediate direct relationship ex-contract is of no consequence. The real employer is the management not immediate contractor. The principles decided in the case of Hussainbhai v. The Alath Factory Teshilali Union & Ors. (Supra) fully applies in the facts and circumstances of this case and the unreported judgment and decision cited by the learned Advocate for the respondent in the case of India (supra) has no application. 8. Accordingly, in my opinion, the petitioners should succeed in this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to recognise the petitioners nos. 2 to 158 as direct employees of the Food Corporation of India. The salary and benefits of the petitioners should be fixed in accordance with the rules and as per existing pay structure of the Food Corporation of India. The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to recognise the petitioners nos. 2 to 158 as direct employees of the Food Corporation of India. The salary and benefits of the petitioners should be fixed in accordance with the rules and as per existing pay structure of the Food Corporation of India. The Food Corporation of India in implement this order within five weeks from the date of communication of this judgment and order. Under such circumstances, the stay prayed for is not/granted. The writ petition is, thus disposed of. There will he no order as to costs. All parties shall act on a signed copy of the operative portion of the judgment and order on the usual undertaking. Petition allowed directions given.