RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has presented this writ petition questioning the legality of a notice issued by the assistant labour commissioner, Bangalore, calling upon it to register itself under Section 7 of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 ('the act' for short), read with Rule 18 of the rules framed the reunder. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case arethese :- the petitioner is a transport operator. It entered into a contract with the Bangalore dairy for the distribution of milk to various depots in Bangalore city area. The assistant labour commissioner, who is incharge of the enforcement of the act issued a notice dated 24-2-1984 to the petitioner, which is marked as annexure-a. It reads :"with reference to the above subject, by this time, I have made it very clear to you that. every establishment wherein contract labour are employed, the head of the office or department of the government; or in a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, or in any other establishment, any person responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment, has to obtain the registration certificate in form-ll as required under Section 7 read with Rule 18 of the said act and rules. It is also made clear that the contractors employed by you should take licence from this office before starting the work. Further, Section 9 lays down that no principal employer shall employ contract labour without registration. Violation of this Section is an offence and liable for punishment under Section 23 and 24 of the said act. You are, therefore, once again instructed to : 1. Obtain the registration certificate from this office immediately. 2. See that the contractors obtain the licence from this office immediately. Action taken on this letter may please be intimated immediately. "questioning the legality of the said notice, the petitioner has presented this petition. ( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner that according to the definition of the word 'contractor' given in Section 2 (c) of the Act, it could not be regarded as a contractor for the purpose of taking licence under Section 7 of the Act, for the reason that it was a mere supplier of goods. ( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner that according to the definition of the word 'contractor' given in Section 2 (c) of the Act, it could not be regarded as a contractor for the purpose of taking licence under Section 7 of the Act, for the reason that it was a mere supplier of goods. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision rendered by a learned judge of this court in an un-reported case of B. B. Bhat v State of Karnataka (Cr. P. Nos. 46 and 78 to 82 of 1978, dd. 6-7-1978 ). In the said case, the transport contractors who had entered into contract with Mysore minerals Ltd. , For transporting manganese ore had been prosecuted for violation of the Provisions of the Act, on the allegation that they were carrying on the contract work without securing registration certificate as required under Section 7 of the act. The learned magistrate before whom they were prosecuted found them guilty of the charges levelled against them and had imposed punishment on them. The order of the learned magistrate was challenged in the criminal revision petitions. In the revision petitions the contention urged by the petitioners therein was that they were only suppliers of goods and therefore they were not required to have their names registered under Section 7 of the act. The said contention was upheld. The relevant portion of the judgment reads :-" now, it is to be seen that whether the petitioner is a 'contractor' within the meaning of the act. The said contention was upheld. The relevant portion of the judgment reads :-" now, it is to be seen that whether the petitioner is a 'contractor' within the meaning of the act. 'contractor' is defined in Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act, as follows :- "contractor", in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or Articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor ;" (italic words is mine) the learned magistrate has, in paragraphs 35 to 38 of his common judgment while dealing with this aspect, reasoned that as per exhibit-p5 i. e. , the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Mysore minerals Ltd. , The petitioner has undertaken the work of transporting manganese ore from the afore-mentioned places as contractor and he was required to transport manganese ore and therefore he was undoubtedly 'contractor' within the meaning of the definition of the said word in the act. It is evident that the learned magistrate has over-looked the words "other than a mere supply of goods or Articles of manufacture to such establishment", which have been underlined by me in the definition of 'contractor'. Exhibit p-5 discloses that the petitioner had undertaken to transport 32,500 tonnes of manganese ore from bisgod, tarakabail and dhandeli to belekeri port by 30-4-1977. Manganese ore can be only the goods or Articles of manufacture. But for the words "other than a mere supply of goods or Articles of manufacture to such establishment" appearing in the definition of the word "contractor" in Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act, it could have been argued with force that the petitioner has undertaken to produce a given result, namely, seeing to it that 32, 500 tonnes of manganese ore reached belekeri port on or before 30-4-1977. Such an argument is not available in view of the aforementioned words appearing in the defining clause. Sri K. H. N. Kuranga, learned high court government pleader appearing on behalf of the state argued that the petitioner has been described as 'contractor' in exhibit p-5 and therefore, he is also a 'contractor' within the meaning of the act. This argument does not appeal to in view of the foregoing reasons. Sri K. H. N. Kuranga, learned high court government pleader appearing on behalf of the state argued that the petitioner has been described as 'contractor' in exhibit p-5 and therefore, he is also a 'contractor' within the meaning of the act. This argument does not appeal to in view of the foregoing reasons. In the result these petitions are allowed and convictions and sentences passed against the petitioner by the judicial magistrate, first class, yellapur, in c c. Nos. 19 to 24 of 1977, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted " the above decision supports and covers the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 4 ) THIS writ petition has been referred to division bench on the ground thatthe above judgment requires re-consideration. The learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that if the petitioner is really a supplier of the goods to the Bangalore dairy, which is the establishment with which we are concerned in this case he would not be governed by the Provisions of the act and he cannot be required to have his name registered under Section 7 of the act. The learned counsel, however, pointed out that a contractor to be outside the purview of the act must be a person who supplies goods or Articles of manufacture to the establishment concerned. But in the present case as also in the criminal revision petitions decided earlier, the position has been, the contractor concerned was not the supplier of the goods to the establishment, but had entered into a cor tract with the establishment for transporting the goods belonging to the establishment. According to Section 2 (c) of the Act, which is extracted in the Order, the excerpts from which are set out earlier, a person who enters into a transport contract with an establishment for transporting the goods manufactured or produced or processed by such establishment would be a contractor for the purpose of the act. Such a person is not a supplier of goods to the establishment. He is a contractor for carrying the goods produced, manufactured or processed, as the case may be, by the establishment for hire. Such a contractor is bound to have his name registered under Section 7 of the act. Such a person is not a supplier of goods to the establishment. He is a contractor for carrying the goods produced, manufactured or processed, as the case may be, by the establishment for hire. Such a contractor is bound to have his name registered under Section 7 of the act. For these reasons, we overrule the view taken in b. b. bhat's case and hold that a person who enters into a transport contract with an establishment for the supply of goods manufactured, produced or processed by the establishment to different places would be a contractor as defined under Section 2 (c) of the act and consequently he is obliged to have his name registered in terms of Section 7 of the act. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that in the present case, the Bangalore dairy had informed the assistant labour commissioner that the petitioner was a transport contractor with whom the Bangalore dairy had entered into a contract for transport of milk produced by it. ( 6 ) IN the result. We make the following order. The writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed. --- *** --- .