JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - A short but interesting question whether prosecution of petitioner u/s 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short 'the Act') is justified arises in this revision application. 2. Background facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows: Petitioner is the Director in charge of Security and Detective Services (India) Limited. The said concern is hereinafter referred to as the 'contractor'. According to the prosecution, contractor and consequentially petitioner was liable for prosecution in terms of Section 24 of the Act. Prosecution report was submitted by the Assistant Labour Officer and Inspector under the Act alleging that the petitioner entered into an agreement with Talcher Thermal Power Station Expansion Main Building Division, Talcher (described herinafter as 'principal employer') for engagement of security guards; these guards were contract labour and therefore, contractor was required to take licence under the Contract Act, and having not done so violated Section 12 of the Act. 3. Petitioner refuted the allegation on the ground that the Act had no application to it and therefore, the prescculion as launched was not maintainable in law. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talcher (in short 'S.D. J.M.') and the learned Sessions Judge, Dhen-kanal did not accept the petitioner's contention and held that the Act had application and therefore, conviction u/s 24 was in order. 4. For resolution of the dispute involved, it is meet to refer to definitions of 'workman', 'contract labour' and 'contractor' as given in the Act. 4. For resolution of the dispute involved, it is meet to refer to definitions of 'workman', 'contract labour' and 'contractor' as given in the Act. They are as follows: Workman: "Workman' means any person employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment to do any skilled, semi-skilled or un- skilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, but does not include any such person- (a) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (b) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature; or (c) who is an out-worker, that is to say, a person to whom any articles or materials are given out by or on behalf of the principal employer to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise processed for sale for the purpose of the trade or business of the principal employer and the process is to be carried out either in the home of the outworker or in some other premises not being premises under the control and management of the principal employer. Contract Labour: a workman shall be deemed to be employed as 'contract labour' in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer; Contractor: '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 manufacuture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor;": A workman shall be deemed to be employed as a contract labour when he is hired in or in connection with the concerned work by or through a contractor with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Primary aspect, therefore, to be considered in a case of this nature is whether the concerned workman was hired in or in connection with principal employer's work by or through a contractor. Primary aspect, therefore, to be considered in a case of this nature is whether the concerned workman was hired in or in connection with principal employer's work by or through a contractor. Stand of the prosecution is that the contractor entered into agreement with the principal employer for supply of certain security guards for a price and therefore, the engaged persons were contract labourers. 5. Strong reliance is placed on Ext. 3, the agreement of principal employer with contractor. Undisputedly, the contract between the contractor and the principal employer was for rendering security service and the profession charge payable was for deployment of several named categories of employees. They are one Assistant Security Office-cum-Inspector, one Sergeant, six Head Guards and forty-seven Guards. Amount payable to each one of them was indicated. The nature of job which was to be undertaken by these categories of employees is not forthcoming from the documents placed during trial. Definition of 'workman' excludes persons employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding a particular amount. 6. A workman shall be deemed to have been employed as contract labour when he is hired in, or in connection with a particular work of the principal employer. The determinative factor, therefore, is whether a workman was hired in or in connection with work of an establishment. A permanent employee who during his employment can be placed at different establishments at the choice of the contractor cannot be called to be a contract labour because he is not hired in or in connection with the work of any particular establishment. The logic behind this conclusion is that where employment of a person is unrelated with any specific work of any establishment, he is not a contract labour, because his employment has no nexus with any particular work of any establishment. The terms of engagement of one of the security guards were filed as a specimen sample. There is no dispute that similar terms existed for other Security Guards. The document is a part of Ext. A. Conditions 3 and 4 of the appointment order vide No 1878/ SDS. Dated July 31, 1982 read as follows: "3. That you will be whole-time employee of the organisation and you will not engage yourself anywhere in any work or profession or employment either honorary or otherwise during your employment with us. The document is a part of Ext. A. Conditions 3 and 4 of the appointment order vide No 1878/ SDS. Dated July 31, 1982 read as follows: "3. That you will be whole-time employee of the organisation and you will not engage yourself anywhere in any work or profession or employment either honorary or otherwise during your employment with us. You will work with honesty, sincerety and loyalty. 4. That you will be liable to be transferred to any unit of the organisation without any extra allowance or benefit." (emphasis by me) From a bare look thereat, it is apparent that the engagement was not in or in connection with any work of any particular establishment. Merely because a contractor undertakes to render any particular service and engages its employees, it does not ipso facto lead to engagement of contract labour, unless persons who are engaged were hired for any particular job. That is the distinctive feature. Prosecution has failed to establish that the contractor hired any particular person for engagement with the principal employer's work. On the contrary the evidence of the informant clearly shows that he had not verified the service conditions of the employees under the contractor and had not verified any document to find out such service conditions. He also admitted that he did not know the method and manner of discharge of work by the Security Guards employed by the contractor and whether they were to act under the instruction of the contractor, and that the principal employer had no control over the security guards employed by the contractor. He accepted that he did not know as to what emoluments and other benefits the employees were getting from the contractor, and that a lump amount was being paid by the principal employer for the total service of guards engaged. In the absence of any definite material that the employment of all or any of the employees was for work in or in connection with the principal employer's establishment, the conviction cannot be maintained. Consequentially, the sentence awarded is nullified. 7. The revision application is allowed. Final Result : Allowed