A. K. Sikri,j. ( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions raise common question of law and arises from almost identical (acts and therefore can be disposed of by one common judgment. In all these writ petitions, interpretation of notification dated 9. 12. 1976 issued by Central Government in exereise of powers under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. 1970 is involved. The said notification reads as under: "in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970), the Central Government after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, hereby prohibits employment of contract on and from the 1st March, 1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government: Provided that this notification shall not apply to the outside cleaning and other maintenance operations of multistoreyed buildings where such cleaning or maintenance operations cannot be carried out except with specialised experience. " ( 2 ) AS per the aforesaid notification issued by the Central Government, employment of contract labour for, interalia, "watching of buildings" has been prohibited w. e. . f. 1. 3. 1977. Petitioners in all these writ petitions are working as security guards. ( 3 ) THE question to be determined is as to whether the security services provided by the petitioners would be covered by the expression watching of buildings? If that be so, then such petitioners could not have been appointed as contract labour. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy, we may take the facts of CW No-4211/97 inasmuch as the nature of employment of such security, guards on contract basis in other petitions is almost simir/same. ( 5 ) PETITIONERS in Civil Writ No. 4211/97are Ex-armymen. Respondent No. 2 is the Airport Authority of India (hereinafter AAI) and it needs security services at various airports including IGI Airport Cargo Terminal for the purpose of providing security at IGI Airport Cargo Terminal. It has hired the services of UP Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited i. e. respondent No. 4 which is a contractor and provides such services. Respondent No. 2 is the Airport Authority of India (hereinafter AAI) and it needs security services at various airports including IGI Airport Cargo Terminal for the purpose of providing security at IGI Airport Cargo Terminal. It has hired the services of UP Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited i. e. respondent No. 4 which is a contractor and provides such services. Petitioners are the employees of contractor and under the aforesaid contract of providing security between AAI and contractor, the petitioners are deployed/deputed as security guards at IGI Airport Cargo Terminal. They have been working as such at the aforesaid terminal from different dates. It is stand of the petitioners that they are discharging duties of permanent and perennial nature. Moreover according to petitioners, the work performed by them as security guards comes within the expression "watching of buildings" and they may be treated as direct/regular employees of AAI. It is further mentioned that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation Etc. v. United Labour Union and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 645 . ( 6 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of AAI it is stated that petitioners are the employees of contractor which is a UP Government Corporation and not the employees of AAI. All these petitioners are having a separate employment agreement with contractor as per petitioners own admission. AAI have awarded contract to contractor for whom the petitioners are working. Contractor is an organisation which was awarded the job of security services at the Cargo Terminal after being sponsored by the Director General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, a department which is entrusted by the Government to resettle the ex-servicemen. The said security agency comprises of ex-servicemen of various categories who, apart from being pensioners from the services, are paid wages by contractor. The rate of finalised negotiated wages of the petitioners is much above, the rate of statutory minimum wages and the same was arrived at keeping in view the basis given by Director General of Resettlement whose rates are also above the rate of statutory minimum wages. Apart from the fair rate of wages being enjoyed by the petitioners employed under contractor, the petitioners are also entitled to and are availing the benefits viz. Apart from the fair rate of wages being enjoyed by the petitioners employed under contractor, the petitioners are also entitled to and are availing the benefits viz. earned leave, casual leave, medical insurance and other statutory benefits which are more liberal than the statutory entitlements for the contract workmen as mentioned in the relevant statutes. It is furrier stated that answering respondent had engaged contractor as a Security Agency for providing the security services to the answering respondent vide agreement dated 15. 1. 1994 which was in consonance with the statutory provisions of the Contract Labour Act. The contractor is operating under a licence issued from Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), a licensing authority under the regulations framed under provisions of Contract Labour Act, 1970. The contractor on its own and keeping in view the provisions of the said contract agreement engages ex servicemen without any interference from the AAI. The claim of the petitioners that the nature of job performed by them is covered bynotification deled 9. 12. 1976 is denied by the AAI and it is emphasised in the counter affidavit that the award of work to contractor for providing cargo security services at Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport does not amount to watching of buildings. According to AAI the scope of functions of the contractor i. e. the security agency engaged by the answering respondents comprises of ( 7 ) I. Cargo Security : Monitoring movement of cargo at various stages in the Cargo Terminal right from its receipt to its delivery/release on the basis of relevant/prescribed documents. II. Access Control : Monitoring of movement of visitors/users coming in and going out of Cargo Terminal on the basis of entry permits issued by the prescribed authorities or on the basis of relevant documents carried in person by such visitors/users. III. Surveillance : Keeping close watch on the movement of the personnel working in the Cargo Terminal and users/visitors visiting the Cargo Terminal so as to ensure avoidance of theft, pilferags and unauthorised removal of cargo and other properties of the answering respondents at the Cargo Terminal. IV. The security agency as such is not engaged for watching of the buildings but while performing the security functions relating to Cargo and access Control/surveillance undertakes security of answering respondents properties. AAI, after filing the counter affidavit, also filed additional affidavit on 2. 12. IV. The security agency as such is not engaged for watching of the buildings but while performing the security functions relating to Cargo and access Control/surveillance undertakes security of answering respondents properties. AAI, after filing the counter affidavit, also filed additional affidavit on 2. 12. 1998 in which specific submissions made by the AAI in earlier counter affidavit are further elaborated. It is stated that the notification dated 9. 12. 1976 prohibits employment of contract labour, inter alia, in relation to workmen "watching a building". ( 8 ) THUS, theprohibition imposed by a statutory notification is only in respect of such workmen who are engaged through a contractor to watch a building, the rationale for the same being that watching and guarding of building is a perpetual activity for which regular workmen are required. No contractor ought to engage contract labour for work which is perennial, in character. However, there is no such statutory notification in relation to workmen employed to watch cargo which may be kept in the premises of Airport Authority of India by the Customs Department, where the cargo is to be kept is itself the discretion of the Government/customs Department. The same may be kept in warehouses. The cargo are also kept with the Central Warehouse Corporation, the ICD (Container depot) at Tughlakabad and Pragati Maidan and even in the private warehouses of the Airlines. The work at the Airport Authority of guarding the cargo in specific is not prohibited by any notification under Section 10 of the Act. The Airport Authority submits that the said work can at times be transient and temporary and not perpetual, depending upon where the Government/customs Department decides to keep the cargo. There cannot be any regularisation of staff for watching and guarding the cargo without. the procedure under Section 10 by the Advisory Board being gone into in detail. It is also stated in this additional affidavit that petitioners have concealed following facts:- (i) That the answering respondent is the approved custodian under Section 45 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Cargo Security is not perennial in nature and no provision of the Customs Act, 1962 bars anybody else to be approved as custodian of Air Cargo in the customs area. The Cargo Security is not perennial in nature and no provision of the Customs Act, 1962 bars anybody else to be approved as custodian of Air Cargo in the customs area. It is pertinent to point out that prior to AAI being notified as a custodian the task of handling cargo and allied services were performed by Central Warehousing Corporation. Thereafter, Airport Authority of India took over as "custodian , being so notified, and has been continuing to perform the tasks of handling cargo and all allied services till such time that government notifies some other agency as a custodian . (ii) It is submitted that the answering respondents have been handling cargo and providing all incidental services including Cargo Security Services and for the aforesaid purposes have assigned the contract to U. P. Bhutpurava Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. , Respondent No. 4. As far as the security operations at the Airports are concerned, the security of the Aircraft. , the immigration counter and various other security terminals are handled exclusively by the Anti-Hijacking and Anti-Disruptive Activities Cell of the Delhi Police. T. he immigration counters are manned by special cell of Delhi Police, Thus, where as the security operations at the Airport are manned predominantly by the Delhi Police, the cargo Section is secured by the private security personnel hired through a contractor by the Airport Authority of India. The persons who are managing on behalf of the contractor, namely, U. P. Bhutpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. , are former defence personnel. The said agency is sponsored by the Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. As part of the welfare activities of the Government of India, army personnel who retire at an early age are to be resettled. The Directorate General of Resettlement has floated the present contractor organisation in question i. e. Respondent No. 4 and the same sponsors various personnel to establishments such as Airports for securing the cargo at the said Airports. The agreement with the contractor is for providing security, watch and ward and surveillance service at the cargo terminal. Thus, the engagement of these personnel is directly relatable to the cargo. For merely manning the gates and building even the ordinary guards can suffice. The agreement with the contractor is for providing security, watch and ward and surveillance service at the cargo terminal. Thus, the engagement of these personnel is directly relatable to the cargo. For merely manning the gates and building even the ordinary guards can suffice. ( 9 ) IN the rejoinder affidavit as well as reply to the additional affidavit, the allegations made by the AAI are denied and it re-emphasised that the work performed by the petitioners come under the expression of "watching of buildings" as occurring in the notification dated 9. 12. 1976. ( 10 ) SEPARATE affidavit is filed by the contractor also in which it is stated that the contractor is a Government of Utter Pradesh s enterprise under the Companies Act, 1956 and is primarily engaged to look after the welfare of Ex-Servicemen and their dependent family members through its various schemes and projects including providing opportunities for employment/self-employment arid training as per guidelines issued by the Directorate of General Re-settlement, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, New Delhi, from time to time. One of the activities of the answering Respondent is to provide the services of Ex-servicemen on contract basis to various persons, institutions, organisations and Public Sector enterprises to cater to their security, watch and ward and surveillance requirements. The, said contractor has employed about 7000 Ex-Servicemen on contract basis throughout U. P. , Delhi, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. It is also submitted by the contractor that pursuant to agreement dated 15. 1. 1994 by the contractor with the AAI for providing security the contractor has deployed security personnel at IGI Airport, New Delhi and is rendering the contract/security services to AAI. It is also slated that pay and allowances of the petitioners and other contract labourers of the contractor are being paid as per the service/contract agreement. It is also mentioned that these security personnel are rendering armed security and surveillance services. The claim of the petitioners that they have been engaged for last 10 to 15 years is also denied as patently incorrect because the contract with AAI itself is dated 15. 1. 1994. ( 11 ) MR. vijay Bahuguna, learned Sr. It is also mentioned that these security personnel are rendering armed security and surveillance services. The claim of the petitioners that they have been engaged for last 10 to 15 years is also denied as patently incorrect because the contract with AAI itself is dated 15. 1. 1994. ( 11 ) MR. vijay Bahuguna, learned Sr. counsel who appeared for the petitioners contended that the writ petition was maintainable as no questions disputed facts are involved and this Court was to only interpret the agreement between the contractor and AAI and such interpretation was permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He emphasised that reading of the agreement would show that it was for the purpose of "rendering the security, watch and ward and surveillance" functions at the Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport as enumerated in Schedule a annexed to this Agreement and the expression "watch and ward" clearly comes under "watching of buildings". The learned Sr. counsel REFERRED TO to paras 7, 8 and 26 of the Agreement and taking words from the language used in these paras it is submitted that the scope of the work was guarding area in question manned with arms and security of the IGI Terminal. He also REFERRED TO to the Schedule A to the Agreement which provides First scope of the services and drew attention to para 1 of this schedule as per which contractor was to deploy security personnel to man the premises on round the clock basis to safeguard the Cargo, properties, installations, equipment at the Cargo Terminal and allied premises and submitted that it clearly amounted to "watching of buildings". He also submitted that the expression "watching the building" as occurring in notification dated 9. 12. 1976 is to be taken wider interpretation. The act being beneficial legislation intended to protect the service conditions of contract employees. He REFERRED TO to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sankar Mukheljee v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 532 in support of his submission. He further submitted that as per Clause (d) of Section 123 of the Airport Authorities of India Act it was the statutory duty of the AAI to maintain buildings and to perform this statutory duty contract was awarded to the contractor. The work was therefore of perennial nature. He further submitted that as per Clause (d) of Section 123 of the Airport Authorities of India Act it was the statutory duty of the AAI to maintain buildings and to perform this statutory duty contract was awarded to the contractor. The work was therefore of perennial nature. He also tried to draw support from sub-section (1) of the Contract Labour Act and submitted that-watching of buildings" means "safety and security of buildings". He further submitted that as the arrangement is continuing for last 13 years it can clearly be inferred that the work is of perennial nature. He also relied upon interim order dated 2. 3. 1998 passed in CW No. 4292/97 wherein it has been observed that prima facie services rendered by petitioners are covered by the expression "watching of buildings" occurring in notification dated 9. 12. 1976. He further Submitted that after the judgment of Air India Corporation (supra), AAI at Madras and Calcutta Airports had absorbed such security guards like the petitioners by this treatment was denied to the petitioners who were working at Delhi Airport. He also submitted that the petitioners had distinct advantage in becoming employees of AA I as retirement age in AAI was 60 years as compared to 58 years of the contractor, even though it was the UP Govt. undertaking. He further relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board Thermal Power Station v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha 1995 (5) SCC 27 page 78 and in the case of Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway v. UOI and Am. AIR 1987 SC 784. ( 12 ) MS. Asha Jain Madan who appeared for petitioners in CW No. 4356/98 made her submissions on almost identical lines. In this writ petition, petitioners are ex-servicemen who are employed by respondent No. 3 contractor pursuant to contract awarded by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Respondent No. 3 namely Snam Securities Services has been approved by Directorate General of Resettlement Ministry of Defence as an agency for providing security services covered under the scheme for resettlement of ex-servicemen of defence forces. It may be stated at this stage that Central Government has formulated the aforesaid scheme for resettlement of ex-servicemen of defence forces. For this purpose, a society under the name and title of Directorate General of Resettlement has been formed. It may be stated at this stage that Central Government has formulated the aforesaid scheme for resettlement of ex-servicemen of defence forces. For this purpose, a society under the name and title of Directorate General of Resettlement has been formed. Instructions are issued from Government, particularly from Home Ministery to engage the services of specialised security to provide security services and surveillance to the institutions. The contractors like respondent No. 3 in this case are the approved and sponsored by DGR. Reference to such scheme would be made in detail at the appropriate stage. In addition to the arguments noticed above, Ms. Asha Jain Madan submitted that the duties of the workers were essentially related to watching the buildings . Once there was a notification abolishing the contract labour in this field, act does not make any distinction between ex-servicemen and non-ex-servicemen and all such contract workers who are entitled to regularisation. She REFERRED TO to the provisions of Ex-Servicemen (Reemployment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules 1979 and submitted that these rules provide for resettlement of ex-servicemen. As per Rule 4 particular percentage of vacancies were to be reserved for ex-servicemen. Rule 5 contained provision for relaxing the age limit and Rule 6 provided for relaxation in minimum educational qualification prescribed for such posts. These rules also give right to the ex-servicemen to get employment in public sector undertakings and not as contract workers. It was submitted that even when the contractor was paying wages prescribed by DGR, these contract workers were getting the salary/wages much less than salary being given to regular employees and therefore it amounted to exploitation. She also REFERRED TO to the dictionary meaning of the expression watch from various dictionaries to contend that the expression include the security and therefore security guards would be covered by the expression watching the buildings occurring in notification dated 9. 12. 1976. It was also submitted that liberal meaning be given to the expression watching the buildings . ( 13 ) AS against the aforesaid submissions of the petitioners, Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of AAI in CW No. 4211/97. submitted that notification dated 9. 12. 1976 does not cover "security guards" or "watch and ward". It is submitted that the expression "watching of buildings" covered the cases of those persons who were discharging unskilled job of Chowkidar etc. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of AAI in CW No. 4211/97. submitted that notification dated 9. 12. 1976 does not cover "security guards" or "watch and ward". It is submitted that the expression "watching of buildings" covered the cases of those persons who were discharging unskilled job of Chowkidar etc. It was submitted that the security provided by the contractor to the AAI was of highly specialised nature which an ordinary person or Chowkidar could not perform. It was for this reason that the requirement was to engage only Ex-servicemen who were specially trained for such a job. It was also submitted that notification was of the year 1976 and the Central Government intentionally used the words "watching of buildings" rather than "security". It was submitted that the security of the kind now being provided was not even in the contemplation of Central Government in the year 1976 and therefore such type of security could not have been envisaged while issuing notification dated 9. 12. 1976. He REFERRED TO to the enactment called Security Guards Regulations Act, 1981 and particularly Section 2 (i) thereof as per which "security work" and "watch and ward" are treated separately. It was submitted that attention of the Court of the earlier judgments was not drawn to this Act which according to Mr. Bhasin clinches the issue. He also REFERRED TO to the Black s Law dictionary and other English dictionaries for understanding the meaning of the various expressions connected with security, watch and ward etc. He further submitted that the case of Air India Corporation (supra) which arose from the judgment of Bombay High Court dealt with the case of "cleaning and sweeping" which activity was also prohibited by notification dated 9. 12. 1976 and submitted that case was clearly distinguishable. He REFERRED TO to various averments made in counter affidavit, already noticed above, as per which duties of security guards were of such specialised nature and could not be treated as "watching of buildings". He further submitted that immediately after Air India s judgment (supra) if wrong action was taken by authorities at. Madras and Calcutta Airports on the presumptions that the judgment covered the cases of security guards also, such an Act would not bind the respondents to perpetuate which is wrong. He further submitted that immediately after Air India s judgment (supra) if wrong action was taken by authorities at. Madras and Calcutta Airports on the presumptions that the judgment covered the cases of security guards also, such an Act would not bind the respondents to perpetuate which is wrong. In any case according to him, each base was a separate establishment as per the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Sakunthalat. and Ors. v. Union oflndiaand Ors. O. P. No. l987 of 1997-D decided on 11. 3. 1998 and therefore IGI Airport at Delhi was to be treated as a separate establishment. For this proposition he also REFERRED TO to the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of-B. . K. Mohanty v. State of Orissa 1992 (2) LLJ 190. ( 14 ) MR. G. B. Pai learned senior counsel who appeared alongwith Mr. Jagat Arora in CW No-4356/98 for respondent IOC Ltd. submitted in detail the nature of the security services being taken by IOC Ltd. from the contractor who were engaging ex-servicemen and it was a specialised security services. In fact, according to him, the job was that of surveillance and security and it was different from watching the buildings .