ORDER The petitioners, in instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to allow forthwith the petitioner No, 2 to join his duties under the respondent No.1, to pay to the petitioner No.2 wages and to grant other privileges at par with the regular workmen of the respondent No.1 doing similar work and further commanding the said respondents to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorption of the petitioner No, 2 and other Muster Roll workmen who have been continuously working for more than one- year tinder the respondent No.1 and to give such workmen the wages, privileges, benefits and other facilities conferred on the regular workmen of the respondent No.1 discharging similar functions 2. The matter was contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. 3. The petitioner No.1 is a registered Trade Union and claims to look after the interests and welfare of the workmen of Mining & Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. (M.A.MC) in general and the petitioner No.2 and similarly circumstanced workmen in particular. 4. The petitioner No. 2 joined the services of the respondent No.1 as an Electric Helper at its Rajrappa Coal Washery Unit at a gross daily wages of Rs. 10.44 inclusive of Dearness Allowances. The petitioner No.2 was designated as a Muster Roll workman along with some other workmen. The rate of wages paid to the petitioner No.2 and the other casual workers were much less than those of the regular employees discharging similar functions. 5. The petitioner No. rendered three years continuous service to the respondent No. 1 virtually without any leave. 6. In or about the month of May, 1986 the petitioner No.2 passed the Electric Wireman part I B examination. In or about December 1986 the petitioner No.2 was earning a net salary of about Rs 504/- per month after statutory deductions. It is the positive assertion of the petitioner No 2 that he had been working continuously for more than 5 years under the respondent No.1 and was rendering the same kind of service as was being rendered by the regular workmen of respondent No. 1 doing the same type of work although such casual workmen were being paid lower wages compared to those paid to the regular workmen. These averments of the petitioners have however been denied in paragraph 24 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent concerned. 7. The petitioner No.1 on or about November-11, 1987 first wrote a letter to the respondent no. 2 complaining of such sorry state of affairs concerning the petitioner no. 2 and the two other Muster Roll workmen. Thereafter on or about November 20,1981 the petitioner no. 1 wrote to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, Durgapur informing the latter about their grievances and asked for the intervention of the said Deputy Labour Commissioner. It appears from the other averments that although the said Deputy Labour Commissioner tried to persuade the respondent no.1 at least to enter into a dialogue with the petitioner no.1 yet the attempt of the said Deputy Labour Commissioner failed as the respondent no. 1 refused to recognise the territorial and other jurisdiction of the said Deputy Labour Commissioner on various grounds. In fact, the respondent concerned did not participate in the conciliation proceeding at all. The respondents also took the plea that the petitioner no. 2 and other members of the petitioner no.1 being covered under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation-and Abolition) Act, 1970 have no cause of action to maintain this writ application. 8. Ultimately it appears that the conciliation failed but instead of filing a failure report under s. 12(4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. the Deputy Labour Commissioner seems to have abandoned the matter and left the petitioners to their own devices. 9. The respondents further did not allow the petitioner no. 2 and 13 other similarly circumstanced workmen to join their duties on and from May 7, 1988 without assigning any reason therefore. The respondents of course denied such statements. 10. The respondents first raised the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this court in the matter, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners having been employed in Rajrappa and Munidi, Bihar and being aggrieved by an action taken in the State of Bihar cannot move the Calcutta High Court in redressal of their grievances. According to the respondents the appropriate forum would be the High Court of Patna at its Circuit Court in Ranchi. According to the respondents the appropriate forum would be the High Court of Patna at its Circuit Court in Ranchi. The respondents further state that the petitioners and other similarly circumstanced workmen are covered under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 in respect of the said project and the respondent corporation being a licensed contractor within the meaning of s. 2(1)(c) of the said Act, this writ petition is not maintainable on merits also. 11. So far as the jurisdiction is concerned, it may be pointed out that the Head Office of the principal respondents is situate at Durgapur well within the jurisdiction of this Court. All activities and schemes emanate from this Office and the other subordinate offices have very little option or independence to take any action on their own specially when the matter relates to some policy of the principal respondent. On that ground alone this Court retains the jurisdiction irrespective of the place where the workmen concerned may be working at a particular given point of time. 12. The respondent no. 1 stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition that the respondent no.1 is a Government of India undertaking and is a Government company within the meaning of s. 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and it employs about 7,000 persons at Durgapur and at different parts of the country. It is further stated in the said paragraph that the respondent corporation carries on activities of manufacturing different mining equipments and also undertakes various project works for construction of coal washery plant, coal handling plant etc. The respondents further state that in pursuit of such activities, the respondent corporation entered into a contract with Central Coalfields Ltd, for construction of a coal washery plant at Rajrappa in the district of Hazaribagh in the state of Bihar. 13. It is the contention of the respondents that it acts as a contractor to produce given results in respect of the projects and supplies labours for production of such given result. In fact, the respondents state that at various states the respondent undertakes project work and for the said purpose employs workmen and when such work is completed retrenches such workmen. The respondent asserts that they are duly licensed under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. 14. In fact, the respondents state that at various states the respondent undertakes project work and for the said purpose employs workmen and when such work is completed retrenches such workmen. The respondent asserts that they are duly licensed under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. 14. In the circumstances, the respondents state that they are entitled to retrench workmen or otherwise they are not obliged to keep a permanent work-force for such intermittent project work and that the respondents cannot predict as to the continuance of such project work in the country. That is to say the works rendered by the respondents are not perennial in nature. The argument is fallacious as, if a company, specially a Government company is incorporated at least partly for the purpose of doing project work then the uncertainty in the availability of volume of such project work cannot be conceived as an excuse for not keeping a permanent staff. All business ventures are fraught with such uncertainties. A manufacturing unit may face even the clousure owing to a fall in demand of its product. This is the vagary of all enterprises and this cannot be used as a shield against the obligation to employ a regular work-force. That apart a Government company should not, at least normally, be permitted to take shelter under the technicalities of law and it is one of the solemn and sacred duties of such Government company to see its workmen are provided security of jobs. 15. Merely getting a licence under the aforesaid 1970 Act to act as a licensed contractor will not enable the respondent to evade the larger and more solemn responsibilities. The Court can lift the veil of such corporate identity to find out the truth lying behind it. It appears from the affidavit-in-opposition that the respondents work throughout the year in different parts of the country undertaking various projects and such projects are unending in a developing country. 16. It is not necessary to go into the elabrate arguments advt1nced by the contesting parties but for the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the respondent No. 1 should propare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing the workmen who were retrenched after the completion of the project to Rajrappa, within a period of four months fr('m the date of communication of this order. The fact that the workmen are not entitled to move this Court directly as they have submitted to the jurisdiction of the machinery provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not tenable. The High Court is the palladium of justice and its streams should never be fettered. To quote Lord Atkin, "Law is good but justice is better" I am emboldened to say so from the trend of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to probe deeper and deeper into needs of the people without getting involved in technicalities of law. The principle is so established that reference to the innumerable cases is totally unnecessary. 17. In the circumstances, this application succeeds and the respondent no.1 is directed to frame a scheme of absorbing its workmen who were employed at Rajrappa Coal Washery Plant on a rational basis and within four months from the date of communication of this order and to absorh such workmen on the basis of seniority. 18. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Application allowed; direction given.