Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. Both these writ petitions have been heard analogously as the matter in issue is the same. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have prayed for issuance of a writ directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioners being the workmen under the respondent No. 2 and not as contract labour as defined in the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and also issuance of a writ of mandamus on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay wages to the petitioners from March up to April 17, 1995, including all admissible benefits agreed from time to time between the parties which was allowed to all the regular employees of respondents No. 1 and 2 and also for a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to take appropriate action for abolition of the contract labour in the mines of which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the lessees. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Central Government Undertaking. Previously respondent No. 2 was a Public Limited Company but the same was taken over by the Central Governments Undertaking. Respondent No. 2 vis-a-vis respondent No. 1 are the lessees of the mines of Singhbhum (West) District and the mine was commonly known as Manoharpur Ore Mines. After the ores were taken out from the mines, those were being broken and taken in the Railway Wagons for distribution as per the policy of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The tenders were invited for giving contract of breaking ore and for loading in Railway Wagon to contractors and normally the contract was given to the contractors for one year renewable for a further period solely at the discretion of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. The petitioners are working as contract labourers under the different contractors of respondent No. 1 and/ or respondent No. 2. Some of the petitioners are working as such for about ten years and some are even working for about 40 years. At present when the writ petitions were filed, the petitioners were working under the office of respondent No. 4 upto March, 1995. Some of the petitioners are working as such for about ten years and some are even working for about 40 years. At present when the writ petitions were filed, the petitioners were working under the office of respondent No. 4 upto March, 1995. The petitioners were required to load ore in Railway Wagon but then the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 435 of 1996 (R) have been transferred to Chiriya Mines and were engaged for breaking ore to be loaded in Railway Wagons. Similar is the position in respect of three petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1290 of 1996 (R). 4. It is the case of the petitioners that from time to time although the contractors were changed, the petitioners continued to work uninterruptedly since the date of their engagement and the nature of work the petitioners are performing is perennial in nature and they are working continuously doing the same nature of perennial work notwithstanding the change of the contractors, they are deemed to be the workers under respondent No. 2 vis-a-vis respondent No. 1. The wages though paid by the contractors to the petitioners the rate of wages was always being fixed and determined by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the change/increase in the wages with all other benefits such as sick leave, medical benefits, gratuity, bonus as per the regular workers of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were always made available to the petitioners and for all practical purposes, the revision of wages and the benefit being increased from time to time to the regular employee of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were made available to the petitioners and by efflux of time, they were treated as permanent employees for all practical purposes but not giving the status of regular employees as such. The revision of wages being available to the petitioners can be found from the direction being given to the then contractors M/s. Balandu Transport Corporation given by respondent No. 2 can be available from Annexure 1 which is dated December 16, 1983. There was also a tripartite agreement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the respondent No. 2, its recognised Union and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) with regard to contract labour, the petitioners and such agreement is contained in Annexure-2. 5. There was also a tripartite agreement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the respondent No. 2, its recognised Union and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) with regard to contract labour, the petitioners and such agreement is contained in Annexure-2. 5. The gratuity on retirement of the contract labour is paid not by the contractor but respondent No. 1 as contended by the petitioners and in support of it, they have annexed Annexure-3, the letter dated December 28, 1995 by which one contract labourer was paid gratuity on retirement from the side of respondent No. 2 as per the regular employees whose superannuation date was fixed at 58 years and even the contract labourers were also asked to be retired on superannuation at the age of 58. Whenever any dispute arose between the contract labour and the respondent No. 2 then always the same was being decided by respondent No. 2 and its Union and in such agreement the Contractor was never made a party. Annexure 4 series have been filed to illustrate the contention of the petitioners in that respect. In that view of the matter, it is the contention of the petitioners that not only to give the benefit of regular employees, the respondent No. 2 is making intermediary i.e. contract in between the petitioners and respondents No. 1 and 2 and, as such, contract labour system although has been abolished in several mines by the Central Governments notification, as per Sec. 10 (2) of the Act, the petitioners plight had not been changed for the benefit of the employers and to the detriment of the petitioners. The working of the petitioners being perennial in nature, they cannot be deprived of benefit of all regular employees under respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1. When the petitioners raised objection and being transferred to Chiriya Mines their benefits had been curtailed by respondent No. 2 and/or respondent No. 1 and as such the petitioners had no other alternative remedy but to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In that, counter-affidavit has been filed for and on behalf of respondent No. 1. 6. In that, counter-affidavit has been filed for and on behalf of respondent No. 1. The contentions of the petitioners that they are continuously working under the Mines of respondent No. 2 have not been denied but a plea has been taken that under the Act, the word Contract Labour has not been abolished as a whole but contract labour in some cases are being regulated under the different provisions I of the Act. In respect of the present matters and that of the petitioners, there is no notification by the Central Government as yet and the respondents cannot be made to regularise the job of the petitioner in any way whatsoever. The appropriate Government has not come up with the order/direction/notification under the Act being available against the petitioners and hence the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 cannot be made bound without notification of abolition of the contract labour or requirement thereof under the provisions of the Act to make/treat the petitioners as regular employees and give all benefits whatsoever in their favour. Thus the admitted position remains that the petitioners were the contract labourers and their payments were being made through contractors, although their wages are being regulated by the principle employer. 7. Mr. A.M. Alam, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner, has referred to a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation V/s. United Labour Union and Ors. (1997-I-LLM113 & 1151) (SC) wherein it has been held that the Act is social 5 welfare measure and the interpretation of the provision must be made in social oriented way to give benefit to the society in general. The abolition of contract labour has the effect of direct relationship of the employer and the employee and the intermediary of the contractor is to be abolished so that the workmen gets right to be regularised in service. In that case, the appellants were engaged as contract labourers for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of the buildings owned and occupied by the Air India Statutory Corporation. The Central Government made a notification under Section 10 of the Act for abolition of the contract labour, but then the Central Advisory Committee was appointed to consider the case of the petitioners and it was held that they should not come within purview of the notification and hence the dispute started. The Central Government made a notification under Section 10 of the Act for abolition of the contract labour, but then the Central Advisory Committee was appointed to consider the case of the petitioners and it was held that they should not come within purview of the notification and hence the dispute started. At the first instance, on basis of the previous judgment of the Apex Court it was argued by the Solicitor General that the appropriate Government as mentioned under the Industrial Disputes Act vis-a-vis the Act itself should be the State Government and not the Central Government but it was held that after amendment of the Act in the year 1998, the appropriate Government became the Central Government. In the present case, that dispute is not there. 8. It is an admitted fact that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Central Government Undertakings and for them definitely the appropriate Government is the Central. Ultimately after various discussions of the point of law and the applicability of the Act, it was held that when there was abolition of the contract labour by the Central Government and there is no effect of any Central Advisory Boards decision, there remains no other alternative but to hold the contract labourers to be regular employees and directions were given to treat the employees under the Corporation with cut off date fixed. In the present case, there is no such Government notification or order under the Act and it has been contended that until and unless such sort of notification or direction is there under the Act, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be made bound to abolish the contract labour and treat the petitioners and such similarly situated contract labour as regular employees of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. But from the trend of the decision given by the Central Government, it appears that even if there is no such notification or direction by the Central Government, then also the nature (sic) of the work being performed by the petitioners and the similarly situated persons being perennial and continuous in nature, they should be treated as regular employees. It is unfortunate to note that in the present case, although respondent No. 3, the Union Government was made a party and Mr. It is unfortunate to note that in the present case, although respondent No. 3, the Union Government was made a party and Mr. Trivedi, Senior Standing Counsel, Central Government has taken time for seeking instructions in the case but ultimately failed to file any counter-affidavit in the case. Although in similar position with regard to other mines, the Central Government made notification under Sec. 10 of the Act abolishing contract labour system, but in the present case, it appears that the Union Government which undertakes respondents No. 1 and 2 is apathetic in taking action under the Act for the obvious reasons to deprive the petitioners and the similarly situated contract labour from their legitimate claim and demand of treating as regular employees. 9. Mr. M.K. Banerjee appearing for and on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, in course of argument has stated that as per observations made by the Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation (supra) perhaps there remains every scope to give appropriate direction in the present case, but according to him, the Apex Court has not considered the position of the Government Undertakings, Corporations and that of the Private Companies. According to him, Government Undertakings, Corporations and Private Companies while doing the same business, different prohibitory laws are applicable only to the Government Undertaking and not to the Private Companies and in that way Private Companies are flourishing while the Government Undertakings are always behind because of legal bindings etc. Mr. Banerjee has given an example by citing the case of TISCO comparing with SAIL (respondent No. 1). There is no applicability of the Act in the case of private concern and as such they are free to make production on lower investments while SAIL cannot do so. According to him, there cannot be any healthy competition unless the laws are made similarly applicable to private concerns also. The contract labour system is in vogue in the Private Organizations but the Act has got no application on those Private Organizations. The Act must have been made applicable to the Private organizations and they only then can be healthy competition between the Government Undertakings and the Private Companies when the matter of production and business remains of the same character. The Legislative authorities may consider the matter in proper perspective. 10. The Act must have been made applicable to the Private organizations and they only then can be healthy competition between the Government Undertakings and the Private Companies when the matter of production and business remains of the same character. The Legislative authorities may consider the matter in proper perspective. 10. In the present case, although it has been stated in an omnibus way regarding the workings of the petitioners being perennial in nature and on continuous service and it has not been denied in that way but still for the purpose of acting within the purview of the Act, there requires to be a specific finding to that effect and there should be a direction from the appropriate Government, here in the present case, the Central Government and when the Central Government even after completion of fifty years of independence are keeping mum and taking different stands in respect of different mines there is every scope of alleging discrimination against the Central Government and thus attracting Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners. The action of the Central Government is deprecated. 11. In that view of the matter and as per the decision arrived at by the Apex Court, the Ministry of Labour, Union of India, is hereby directed to make proper direction/guidelines as provided under the Act within three months, next from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment/order of this Court. A copy of the judgment should be made available to Mr. Trivedi so that he may take appropriate steps in the matter. In taking such action under the Act, the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Union of India, New Delhi, shall take stock of all materials both from the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and from the Contract Labour Organisation or their representative of Manoharpur Mines. Regarding the claim of blockade of the petitioners wages by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 no stand has been taken against the demand made by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to give all the facilities which the petitioners were enjoying since past several years and being stopped for agitating their grievances before the employer and for filing of this writ petition within two months next positively. These writ petitions are allowed with the directions to both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to give all the facilities which the petitioners were enjoying since past several years and being stopped for agitating their grievances before the employer and for filing of this writ petition within two months next positively. These writ petitions are allowed with the directions to both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and also the respondent No. 3 as mentioned above, but without cost.