JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the order dated 3-7-1990 (reported in 1990 (1) RLR 436 ) passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant, seeking to quash the decision of the Central Government in regard to shifting the corporate offices of Hindustan Salts Ltd. and Sambhar Salts Ltd. to Sambhar. Hindustan Salt Limited is a Government company, incorporated under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, in the year 1959. 100% shares of this Company are held by the President of India. It has its works where salt is produced at Kharaghoda, District Surendra Nagar, State of Gujarat and at Mandi, in the State of H. P. and has an Iodisation Plant at Ramnagar, Distt. Nainital (UP) and all these offices are being controlled and supervised by the Corporate Office located at Jaipur, whereas Sambhar Salts Ltd is also a Government company, incorporated in the year 1964. 60% shares of this Company are held by the Hindustan Salts Limited and 40% shares are held by the Government of Rajasthan. Sambhar Salts Limited has its works at Sambhar Lake. Both the Companies are under the administrative control of the Ministry of Industry, Department of Public Enterprises Union of India and since their formation, their corporate office/head-offices are both located at Jaipur. Appellant, Hindustan Salts Employees Union, is a recognised union of the employees of Hindustan Salts Limited and all the members of staff of these two companies are members of this union. 2. In November, 1967, there was a move for shifting the corporate office of Hindustan Salts Limited and Sambhar Salts Limited, to Sambhar Lake but the Board of Directors of the Company, decided that it will be proper to continue both the offices at Jaipur. Again in 1977, on the representation of Shri R. K. Bairwa, Member of Parliament, made to the Central Government, the matter regarding shifting the offices of both the Companies to Sambhar Lake was again considered. The matter was again examined by the Ministry of Industry as well as by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, and it was decided not to shift the offices to Sambhar as it will not be in the interest of the Company. The matter was again examined by the Ministry of Industry as well as by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, and it was decided not to shift the offices to Sambhar as it will not be in the interest of the Company. The matter regarding shifting of the head office/corporate offices was once again examined by the Board in the year 1981 and it was again decided not to shift them to Sambhar. This very matter was again raised by Shri R.K. Bairwa, Member of Parliament, in April, 1989, in a Consultation Committee meeting. The matter was again examined in detail by the Department of Public Enterprises and it was not thought proper to shift the offices to Sambhar. 3. Shri Gopal Pacherwal was elected to the Lok Sabha in the elections held in November, 1989, from Tonk constituency, which includes Sambhar as well. He again took up the matter and again requested the Central Government to shift the Head Office of the Hindustan Salts Limited and Sambhar Salts Limited to Sambhar. The matter was re-examined and the Ministry of Industry, took a decision to shift the corporate offices of Hindustan Salts Ltd. and Sambhar Salts Ltd. to Sambhar, vide Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India, letter dated 19-1-1990, addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the aforesaid respondent, asking them to implement the order of transfer of offices by 30-4-1990. The appellant Union submitted its objections in writing vide letter dated 5-4-1990. However, an order was issued on 12-4-90 for transfer of the corporate offices with effect from 26-4-1990 The appellant Union filed a writ petition before this Court. Notices were issued, the respondents filed a reply and the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 3-7-1990 dismissed the writ petition. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge that the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not correctly interpreted the provisions of Article 6 (a) of the Memorandum of Association of Hindustan Salts Limited. Article 6 (a) of the Memorandum of Association reads as under:- "to act as agents for Governments or authorities or for any manufacturers, merchants and others and to carry on agency business of every kind of any description connected with the business of the Company". Article 6 (a) of the Memorandum of Association reads as under:- "to act as agents for Governments or authorities or for any manufacturers, merchants and others and to carry on agency business of every kind of any description connected with the business of the Company". Merely because in the Memorandum of Association, the Company is required to act as an agent of the Government, it does not make the Company an agent of the Government of India for all purposes. The two companies are two separate legal entities, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and are bound to function according to the provisions made in the Memorandum and Articles of Association and therefore, the decision of the Govt. of India is not binding on the Company, on the principle of relationship between the principal and the agent. In the alternative, it has also been submitted that if the Company is taken to be an agent of the Government, then, it must be subject to some limitations as the government, and therefore, even an arbitrary and unfair action by the Company can be quashed by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khslid Mujib Sehravardi and others etc. ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and others v. Mahindra and Mabindra Ltd. and others (AIR 1981 SC 1182) , and it has been submitted that if an action or decision is arbitrary, unfair and perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly informed, could come to, or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach or has been influenced by irrelevant considerations, the court would be justified in interfering with the same. 5. Article 121 of the Articles of Association of the Hindustan Salts Ltd. reads as under ;- "Article 121-Rights of the President. Notwithstanding anything contained in any of these Articles the President may, from time to time, issue such Directives or instructions as may be considered necessary in regard to the finances, conduct of business and affairs of the Company. 5. Article 121 of the Articles of Association of the Hindustan Salts Ltd. reads as under ;- "Article 121-Rights of the President. Notwithstanding anything contained in any of these Articles the President may, from time to time, issue such Directives or instructions as may be considered necessary in regard to the finances, conduct of business and affairs of the Company. In particular the President will have the powers:- (i) to give directions to the enterprise as to the exercise and performance of its functions in matters involving national security or substantial public interest; (ii) to call for such returns, accounts and other information with respect to the property and activities of the enterprise as may be required from time to time; (iii) to approve the enterprise's five year and annual plans of development and the enterprise's capital budget; (iv) to approve agreement involving foreign collaboration proposed to be entered into by the enterprise; (v) to approve the revenue budget in case there is an element of deficit which is to be met by obtaining funds from the Government : Provided that all directives issued by the President shall be in writing addressed to the Chairman. The Board shall, except where the President considers that the interest of the national security requires otherwise incorporate the contents of directives issued by the President in the Annual Report of the Company and also indicate its impact on the financial position of the Company." 6. Article 121 authorises the President to issue directions or instructions, from time to time, in regard to the finances, conduct of business and affairs of the Company and these directions have to be issued in writing addressed to the Chairman. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order dated 19-1-1990 cannot be said to be issued under the powers contained in Article 121 of the Company because there is no such communication in the order itself or otherwise. It has further been submitted that the Union of India is not legally competent to issue such instructions to shift the corporate offices from Jaipur to Sambhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has further submitted that the decision to shift the corporate offices is highly unreasonable, irrational and against the larger interest of the Company as also arbitrary, without due application of mind and without any justification. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has further submitted that the decision to shift the corporate offices is highly unreasonable, irrational and against the larger interest of the Company as also arbitrary, without due application of mind and without any justification. He has further submitted that passing of special resolution by the Company is merely a formality and the Board of Directors of the Company acted without applying their mind, under duress and only in pursuance to the Central Government's decision, and it cannot be said to be a voluntary decision. In this connection, reliance has been placed on State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharminder Prasad Singh ( 1989 (2) SCC 505 ) . It has further been submitted that the authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. If an authority acts under the hands of anybody, it acts ultra vires. 7. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Company is being run in losses and it will not be possible for the Company to spend huge amount for providing facilities. He has placed reliance on Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee v. Union of India and others (AIR 1969 Calcutta 95) and has submitted that where the President exercises some functions not by virtue of any provision of the constitution but in his personal capacity under a private treaty, for example, Articles of Association of a Company, it would be desirable to get his acts authenticated by an officer of his personnel establishment and not by an officer of the Ministry in the Government of India. He has also placed reliance on A. L. Kalra v. The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. (AIR 1984 SC 1861) and has submitted that any action or order should not be arbitrary but must be based on rationable and relevant principles and should ensure fairness. It is immaterial whether such action is an executive action and this court has ample power to interfere if it is shown that the action is unfair and arbitrary. It is immaterial whether such action is an executive action and this court has ample power to interfere if it is shown that the action is unfair and arbitrary. He has further submitted that great injustice will be done to the petitioner and the employees of the company and they will be put to a great hardship, and therefore, this Court in exercise of its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should undo the injustice wherever it is found. Reliance has been placed on Audi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V. R. Kudani and others (1989(2) S. C. C. 691). 8. It has further been submitted that shifting of corporate offices to Sambhar would amount to change in the service conditions which cannot be done without following the procedure laid down u/s 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore also, the action of the respondents is illegal and should be quashed. Reliance was placed on M/s Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen and others ( 1972 (2) LLJ 259 ). 9. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to Article 43A of the Constitution of India which enjoins that the State shall take steps for suitable legislation or in any other way to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organisation engaged in any industry. Reliance has been placed on National Textile Workers' Union etc. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and others ( 1983 (1) LLJ 45 ) and it was submitted that the workers who are vitally interested, should have been consulted before the decision to shift the corporate office was taken, and since they have not been consulted, the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal. 10. As regards the locus standi, reliance was placed on S. P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others ( AIR 1982 SC 149 ). 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have also very vehemently supported the order of the learned Single Judge and have urged that the learned Single Judge after considering all the arguments which were submitted before him and which have been advanced before the division bench elaborately met all those points. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. Learned counsel for the Union of India has placed before us the original file of the Government of India which culminated in the order passed on 19-1-1990. which shows that Mr. Prasanna Hota. Joint Secretary to Government of India, Deptt. of Public Enterprises. Ministry of Industry, New Delhi visited Jaipur and Sambhar in connection with the grievances and allegations raised in the petition of the Genuine Salt Traders Chamber of Sambhar and others, and after considering at length the points both for and against the shifting of the corporate offices to Sambhar, recommended that the Head Offices of both the Companies should be shifted to Sambhar. The matter thereafter was placed before the Secretary of the Department and Minister for Industries approved the said suggestion. It was only thereafter that the letter dated 19-1-1990 was addressed by Mr. Prasanna Hota, Joint Secretary to Government of India, Department of Public Enterprises Ministry of Industry. Our attention was also drawn to the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 which are framed under Article 77(1) of the Constitution of India, which shows that both Hindustan Salts Limited/Sambhar Salts Limited are under the Department of Public Enterprises, which is under the Ministry of Industry. Rule 2 of the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 provides that the business of the Government shall be transacted in the Ministries. Departments, Secretaries and offices in the first schedule to these Rules. Rule 3 deals with the distribution of subjects, whereas Rule 4 provides for allocation of departments amongst Ministers. Item No. 15(iv) of Schedule-I attached to the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 provides 'Department of Public Enterprises (Lok Udyam Vibhag) in the Ministry of Industry (Udyog Mantralaya). Item (D) of Schedule II Ministry of Industry, deals with the Department of Public Enterprises, wherein at Item No. 35 there is mention of Hindustan Salts Ltd. and at Item No. 51 is Sambhar Salts Limited. 13. Our attention was also drawn to the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961, promulgated in exercise of powers conferred by Clause(3) of Article 77 of the Constitution of India. Rule 3 of the Transaction of Business Rules provides for the disposal of business by Ministries. 13. Our attention was also drawn to the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961, promulgated in exercise of powers conferred by Clause(3) of Article 77 of the Constitution of India. Rule 3 of the Transaction of Business Rules provides for the disposal of business by Ministries. Rule 3 reads as under:- "Disposal of Business by Ministries-Subject to the provisions of these Rules in regard to consultation with other departments and submission of cases to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and its Committees and the President all business allotted to a department under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, shall be disposed of by, or under general or special directions of, the Minister-in-charge." Thus, it is clear that the Minister Incharge of the Department of Industry was quite competent to take the decision in view of Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 as well as Transaction of Business Rules, which have been promulgated under the powers conferred by clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution of India. 14. A reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Dattatraya Moreshwar v. The State of Bombay and others ( AIR 1952 SC 181 ) , wherein it has been observed as under:- "Article 166 directs all executive action to be expressed and authenticated in the manner therein laid down but an omission to comply with those provisions does not render the executive action a nullity. Therefore, all that the procedure established by law requires is that the appropriate Government must take a decision as to whether the detention order should be confirmed or not under Section 11 (1). Where such decision has been in fact taken by the appropriate Government, there is no breach of the procedure established by law and the detention cannot be called in question." 15. There is a distinction between the taking of an executive decision and giving formal expression to the decision so taken. Usually, executive decision is taken on the office files by way of notings or endorsements made by the appropriate authorities or the Minister Incharge. If every executive decision has to be given a formal expression, the whole Government machinery will be brought to a stand-still. Usually, executive decision is taken on the office files by way of notings or endorsements made by the appropriate authorities or the Minister Incharge. If every executive decision has to be given a formal expression, the whole Government machinery will be brought to a stand-still. Therefore, it cannot be either emphasised or insisted that every executive decision must be formally expressed, though normally, it should be expressed in the form mentioned in Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India i.e. in the name of the President of India, but an omission to make authentic an executive decision in the form mentioned in Article 166, does not make the the decision itself illegal because such provisions have been held to be directory and not mandatory, as has been held as early as in J. K. Gas Plant Manufacturing Co. (Rampur) Ltd. v. Emperor (AIR 1947 FC. 38) , which case has been noticed with approval by the Supreme Court in Dattatraya v. State of Bombay (supra), but in the present case, the executive decision was taken by the Minister Incharge which has been amply established by the record. The judgment given in the case Dattatraya v. State of Bombay (supra) was later on followed by their lordship of the Supreme Court in Major E.G. Parsay v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1961 SC 1762 ) wherein their lordships have observed that Article 77 (1) is only directory. Though an impugned order was not issued in strict compliance with the provisions of Article 77(1), it can be established by evidence aliunde that the order was made by the appropriate authority. If an order is issued in the name of the President and is duly authenticated in the manner prescribed in Article 77 (2) there is an irrebuttable presumption that the order is made by the President. Where the impugned order does not comply with the provisions of Article 77(2) it is open to the party to question the validity of the order on the ground that it was not an order made by the President and to prove that it was not made by the Central Govt. Where however the evidence establishes that the order was made by the Deputy Secretary on behalf of the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the rules delegating such power to him the order cannot be questioned." 16. Where however the evidence establishes that the order was made by the Deputy Secretary on behalf of the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the rules delegating such power to him the order cannot be questioned." 16. Supreme Court in a later case Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab & another ( AIR 1974 SC 2192 ) (bench consisting of seven Judges), observed that in case where the President exercises his function, conferred on him, by or under the Constitution with the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers, he does so by making rules for convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India or by allocation among his ministers, of the said business, in accordance with Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India. This satisfaction is not the personal satisfaction of the President but is the satisfaction in the constitutional senses under the cabinet system of the government. It is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers on whose advice the President generally exercises his powers and functions. Article 77(3) provides that the President shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government and the allocation of business among the Ministers of the said business. The Rules of Business and the allocation among the ministers of the said business, all indicate that the decision of any Minister or officer under the Rules of Business made under Article 77(3) of the Constitution is the decision of the President. 17. It has further been held in Samsher Singh's case that when the President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister in all matters which vest in the executive whether those functions are executive or legislative in character, the President need not exercise the functions personally. 18. In the present case, the Union of India has produced the original record and the Government file in which the decision has been taken by the Industries Minister which affirmatively establishes that the decision was taken in accordance with the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 and the Transaction of Business Rules, 1961, framed under the powers of Article 77 (3) of the Constitution of India, and that too after due deliberation and considering the pros and cons. 19. 19. Hindustan Salts Limited is a Government company incorporated u/s 617 of the Companies Act 100% shares of which are held by the President of India and it has to act as an agent for Governments, or authorities or for any manufacturers, merchants and others and to carry on agency business of every kind of any description connected with the business of the Company, as enjoined by Article 6 of the Memorandum of Association. Article 74(i) of the Articles of Association provides that the Chairman of the Beard of Directors and the Govt. representatives on the Board shall be appointed by the President. The other Directors on the Board shall be appointed by the President in consultation with the Chairman. The Directors including the Chairman shall be paid such salary and/or allowances as the resident may from time to time determine. Article 77 provides that the President may appoint one of the Directors to be the Managing Director or a Board of Management consisting of two or more Directors for the conduct or management of the business of the company, subject to the control and supervision of the Beard of Directors, whereas Article 85 further empowers the President to nominate the Director as Chairman of the Directors meeting. Article 86 provides powers of the Chairman. The Chairman shall reserve for the decision of the Central Government, any proposals or decisions of the Board of Directors or any matter brought before the Board, which raises, in the opinion of the Chairman, an important issue and which is on that count fit to be reserved for the decision of the Central Government and no decision on such an important issue shall be taken in the absence or the Chairman appointed by the President. Article 121 of the Articles of Association authorises the President to issue such directives or instructions from time to time as may be considered necessary in regard to the finances, conduct of business and affairs of the Company. This amply shows the authority and power of the President with regard to the functions and business of the Company. 20. Board of Directors of Sambhar Salts Limited in its 138th meeting held on 27-3-1990, wherein four Board of Directors were present including the Chairman cum-Managing Director Col. S.B. Lal, Prasanna Hota, Joint Secretary, E.K. Salma, Director and Prof. Taqvui Khan. 20. Board of Directors of Sambhar Salts Limited in its 138th meeting held on 27-3-1990, wherein four Board of Directors were present including the Chairman cum-Managing Director Col. S.B. Lal, Prasanna Hota, Joint Secretary, E.K. Salma, Director and Prof. Taqvui Khan. Director In the said meeting Shri R.K Bhalla, Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer and Shri B.L. Sethi for the Secretary, were also present. While considering Item No. 4 of the Agenda with regard to the shifting of the Companies' Headquarters, from Jaipur to Sambhar, after a detailed discussion and considering all the various aspects, the Board resolved to implement the Government decision of shifting the present corporate offices to Sambhar in a phased manner and also the manner in which this has to be done. A detailed note for consideration of the Board of Directors, relating to Item No. 4, was also issued wherein it was brought to the notice of the Board of Directors, about the whole history with regard to the question of transfer of corporate offices from Jaipur to Sambhar. If after taking into consideration the whole matter, specially in which it was circulated and exchanging their views, if the Board of Directors have come to a decision to implement the Government decision it cannot be said that they have acted in an arbitrary manner or without considering the pros and cons of the shifting of the offices or that they have acted under the influence or directions of the Central Government. Every person has a right to express his opinion in a meeting and that is the purpose of democracy but after having expressed his opinion and having heard the views of other persons, considering the pros and cons of the matter, keeping in mind the whole history, every person has a right to change his opinion until he agrees for a particular decision which they have reached after due deliberations and therefore, this resolution cannot be questioned merely on the ground that some of the Directors had initially expressed their opinion against this decision or that it was only because of the direction of the Central Government that they ultimately agreed with the decision, more so in view of Article 121 of the Articles of Association wherein the President has been authorised to issue directions/instructions, from time to time with regard to the conduct of business and affairs of the company. After all, the Government of India has 100% shares in the Hindustan Salts Ltd. A resolution was also passed by the Sambhar Salt Ltd. in the meeting of Board of Directors held on 27-3-1990. This decision of the Board of Directors was rectified in the general meeting, Extra-ordinary, held on 17-4-90 of the Sambhar Salts Ltd. and that of the Hindustan Salts Ltd. held on 21-4-1990. Both the companies have fully complied with the provisions of Section 146 of the Companies Act in respect of shifting of the registered offices. 21. Mr. Ashok Mishra, learned counsel for the intervener, has submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, because the petitioner has suppressed the material fact that the proceedings are pending u/s 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the writ petition does not lie and it should be dismissed in limine. In this connection, he has placed reliance on Management of the Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. The Workmen ( AIR 1970 SC 867 ). wherein it has been held that the Company which is incorporated under the Companies Act, but being also a Government company, as defined u/s 617 of the Companies Act, was bound to implement the directions and instructions issued by the Central Government as enjoined by Article 110 of the Articles of Association of that Company, which is equivalent to Article 121 in the present case. 22. He has also brought to our notice a decision of this Court in Kailash Meghwal & others v. State of Rajasthan and others (1983 RLR 57) wherein this Court refused to interfere in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the executive or administrative decision of shifting a circle office of PHED from Ajmer to Bhilwara, because such a decision was not malafide. 23. The letter dated 19-1-1990 of the Union of India is in terms, not an order but simply a suggestion or instruction and thereafter, resolution was passed by the Board of Directors as well as by the general meeting of the Company and therefore is a decision of the Company and not that of the Union of India or the President of India and hence, there was no question of any violation of Article 77 of the Constitution of India. 24. 24. Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (supra) has observed as follows : "Applying these principles, the impugned decision of a company following the decision of the Central Government cannot be said to be perverse or such that any reasonable body of persons properly informed could come to that conclusion nor it can be said that it has reached the decision by adopting a wrong approach or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters". Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the same under its inherent extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, even keeping in mind the observations of their lordships of the Supreme Court in a later case in State of U.P. and others v. Maharaja Dharmander Pd Singh & ors. (1989) 2 SCC 505 ) , relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be said that this court should interfere in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because judicial review cannot be converted into an appeal. Judicial review is directed not against the decision but is confined to the examination of the decision making process and it cannot be said that the decision in the present case taken by the Company was vitiated by taking into account irrelevant or neglecting to take into account all relevant factors nor it is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority entrusted with the powers in question would reasonably have made such a decision. 25. As regards the provisions of Article 43-A of the Constitution of India, of which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant, which enjoins upon the Government to take steps by suitable legislation, or in any way to secure the participation of workers in the management of; undertakings, establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry and that is the real need of the hour, this Court as well as the Apex Court of the country has many a times impressed upon the Government to enact suitable laws so ate to fulfil its obligations under Article 43-A of the Constitution, for providing participation of workers in the management of industries. This court cannot enact any law for that purpose, except advising, and emphasising on the Government the importance of this laudable obligation of the State. This court cannot enact any law for that purpose, except advising, and emphasising on the Government the importance of this laudable obligation of the State. It is high time when the Government should act and enact suitable laws for this purpose, at an early date. 26. In this view of the matter, we do not find any force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. 27. Before we part with the case, we shall like to observe that the companies should realise that the workers are their employees and they have to take work from the workers. Therefore, full facilities should be provided to them, with regard to their residence, office accommodation transport etc. so that it does not hamper their efficiency and their actual working. The financial aspect should also not be lost sight of.Appeal Dismissed. *******