A. K. SIKRI,j ( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is the registered union and petitioners 2 to 23 claim to be itsmembers. Petitioners 2 to 23 are contract workers engaged byrespondent No. 3,contractor. Their principle employer is respondent No. 2 namely International Centrefor Genetic Engineering and Bio-technology. In this petition, petitioners are seeking,interalia, relief to the effect that they be absorbed and regularised byrespondentno. 2 from the date of their employment as mentioned in Annexure-A to the writpetition. The main contention ofthe petitioners is that these petitioners are doingthe job of sweeping, cleaning etc. in the establishment of respondent No. 2 and areengaged on contract basis for this job although it is prohibited by notification dated9. 12. 1976 issued by Central Government Relying upon the judgment of Supremecourt in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation Etc. Vs. United Labourunion and Ors. , reported in AIR 1997 SC 645 , it is contended that they entitled tobe absorbed as regular employees of Respondent No. 2 ( 2 ) A preliminary objection is taken by respondent No. 2 to the maintainability of thewrit petition on the ground that respondent No. 2 is not an "establishment" definedunder section 2 (e) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (Hereinafterreferred to as Act) and Central Government is not its "appropriate Government". Itis also submitted that respondent No. 2 is not a "state" or "instrumentality" or "anagency of the State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, andtherefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. ( 3 ) BEFORE adverting to this controversy, it would be appropriate to state the legalposition in this respect. ( 4 ) UNDER Section 10 (2) of the Act, "appropriate Government" is empowered toissue notification prohibiting employment of contract labour in any activity. Centralgovernment issued notification dated 9. 12. 1976 under the aforesaid provisionprohibiting employment of contract labour on and from 1. 3. 1977 for sweeping,cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishment inrespect of which the appropriate Government under the Act is the Central Government. Centralgovernment issued notification dated 9. 12. 1976 under the aforesaid provisionprohibiting employment of contract labour on and from 1. 3. 1977 for sweeping,cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishment inrespect of which the appropriate Government under the Act is the Central Government. This notification reads as under: "in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 10 of thecontract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970), the Centralgovernment after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labourboard, hereby prohibits employment of contract labour on and from the 1/03/1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildingsowned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriategovernment under the said Act is Central Government. Provided that this notification shall not apply to the outside cleaning andother maintenance operations of multistoreyed buildings where such cleaningor maintenance operations cannot be carried out except with specialisedexperience. " ( 5 ) SECTION 2 (a) defines "appropriate Government" and section 2 (e) defines"establishment". These sections may be reproduced at this stage: "2 (A): "appropriate Government" means,- (i) in relation to an establishment in respect of which the appropriategovernment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), is thecentral Government; (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State inwhich that other establishment is situated2 (e) "establishment" means- (i) any office or department of the Government or a local authority, or (ii) any place where any industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupationis carried on;" ( 6 ) IN order to apply the notification dated 9. 12. 1976 to respondent No. 2, it hasfirst to beascertained as to whether the respondent No. 2 is an "establishment" inrespect of which the "appropriate Government" under the Act is Central Government. Let us examine the structure and constitution of respondent No. 2 for this purpose. The respondent No. 2 is a United Nations body and is a conglomerate of 61 numberof countries which are engaged in the research of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. It was decided in the plenipotentiary meeting of the member countriesconvened in Madrid from 7th to 13/09/1983 and in Vienna from 3rd to 4/10/1984 wherein it was decided to establish the International Centre forgenetic Engineering and Bio-engineering to have its seat at-New Delhi, India andalso in Trieste, Italy. The said decision was taken after an invitation from thegovernment of India to provide the said centre. The said decision was taken after an invitation from thegovernment of India to provide the said centre. Accordingly an agreement wasentered into between the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Bio-technology and the Government of India concerning the seat of the Centre at Newdelhi. Respondents have filed the copy of agreement dated 24. 2. 1996 entered intobetween the respondent No. 2 and the Government of India. Its Preamble reads asunder: "whereas as the Ministerial-level Plenipotentiary Meetings on theestablishment of the International Centre for Genetic Engineering andbiotechnology, convened in Madrid from 7 to 13/09/1983 and invienna from 3 to 4/04/1984, decided to establish the International Centrefor Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (hereinafter referred to as the"centre") having its seat at New Delhi, India, and at Trieste, Italy;whereas the Government of India (hereinafter the "government) hasdeclared its readiness to provide the Centre with premises, furnishings andmaterials;whereas the Centre and the Government have declared their willingnessto conclude an agreement to regulate questions arising as a result thereof. " ( 7 ) IT is clear from the aforesaid that respondent No. 2 has been establishedpursuant to the meetings of participating nations convened in Madrid and Vienna inseptember 1983 and April 1984 respectively and as it was decided in thesemeetings that respondent No. 2 will have a seat at New Delhi and at Trieste, Italy. Government of India, one of the participating nations, entered into the aforesaidagreement to provide the centre with premises, furnishings and materials. Howevergovernment shall retain title to all these properties provided to respondent No. 2 (Section 3 of the agreement) and on termination of the operations of respondentno. 2 in the territory of India respondent No. 2 has to restore to Indian Government ingood conditions all these buildings, equipments etc. placed at the disposal ofrespondent No. 2 (Section 5 of the agreement ). In so far as incurring of expenses isconcerned, same is to be borne by respondent No. 2 which are in turn contributed byparticipating nations. ( 8 ) IN fact as per Section 9 of the aforesaid agreement, the Indian Government issupposed to apply to Centre, the statutes of respondent No. 2 and is to give privilegesand immunities of the specialised agencies of United Nations. ( 8 ) IN fact as per Section 9 of the aforesaid agreement, the Indian Government issupposed to apply to Centre, the statutes of respondent No. 2 and is to give privilegesand immunities of the specialised agencies of United Nations. Accordingly thestatutes of the ICGEB were prepared in consonance with the United Nationspolicies and the preamble of the statutes reads as under: "preamblethe STATE, PARTIES TO THE PRESENT STATUTESRecognizing the need for development and applying peaceful uses ofgenetic engineering and biotechnology for the benefit of making. Urging that the potential of genetic engineering and biotechnology shouldbe utilized to contribute to solving the pressing problems of development,particularly in the developing countries. Being aware of the need for international co-operation in this field, particularlyin research, development and training. Emphasizing the urgency of strengthening the scientific and technologicalcapabilities of developing countries in this field. Recognizing the important role that an International Centre would play inthe application of genetic engineering and biotechnology for development,bearing in mind that the High-level Meeting held on 13- 17/12/1982 inbelgrade, Yugoslavia, recommended that an International Centre for Geneticengineering and Biotechnology of high excellence be established soonestpossible, andrecognizing the initiative taken by the Secretariat of UNIDO for thepromotion and the preparation of the establishment of such a Centre, HAVEAGREED as follows:establishment and Seat of the Centre:1. An International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (hereinafter referred to as "the Centre") is hereby established as aninternational organisation comprising a centre and a network of affiliatednational, sub-regional and regional centres. 2. The Centre shall have its seat at New Delhi. The said statutes were ratified by the Government of India. ( 9 ) THAT a Notification dated 12. 04. 1988 by the Ministry of External Affairs waspublished in the Gazetted of India :extra ORDINARY on 20. 04. 1988. Vide thesaid notification in pursuance of Article 13 of the above said Statutes, it wasconsidered necessary to accord to the International Centre for Genetic Engineeringand Bio-technology, its representatives, officials and experts privileges and Immunitiesin India similar to those contained in the schedule to the United National (Privilegesand Immunities) Act, 1947 (46 of 1947 ). Therefore in exercise of the powers conferredby Section 3 of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 (46 of1947) the Central Government declared that the provisions set out in the schedule tothe said Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the ICGEB subject to the modificationstated therein. Therefore in exercise of the powers conferredby Section 3 of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 (46 of1947) the Central Government declared that the provisions set out in the schedule tothe said Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the ICGEB subject to the modificationstated therein. ( 10 ) AS per the Protocol Division, Ministry of External Affairs all the officers/officials of the respondent No. 2 have been granted a diplomatic status and hencehave the immunity against any kind of legal process or prosecution. The said statushas also been granted in pursuance of the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities)Act, 1947 and other Acts/conventions granting diplomatic immunity to the variousinternational bodies as per the schedule annexed to the said Act. The financial statusof the Centre is stated in Article 10 of the statutes which is as under:- 1. The financing of the Centre shall in general consist of: (a) Initial contributions for launching the centre; (b) Annual contributions by the Members preferably in convertiblecurrency; (c) General and special voluntary contributions including gifts, bequests,subventions and funds in trust from Members, non-member states, theunited Nations, its specialised agencies, the International Atomicenergy Agency, the United Nations Development Programme, intergovernmental organisations, foundations, institutions and privatepersons subject to the approval of the Board; (d) Any other sources, subject to the approval of the Board. ( 11 ) AS per Article 13 of the statutes, respondent No. 2 enjoys immunity from everyform of legal process except in so far as in any particular case it has expresslywaived its immunity. ( 12 ) ON the basis of aforesaid provisions, learned counsel for respondent No. 2argued that Indian Government has no control much less deep and pervasivecontrol over respondent No. 2 which is in fact a UN body and conglomerate of 61member countries and by no stretch of imagination, it can be called as "state" orinstrumentality and/or agency of State within the meaning of Article 12 of theconstitution of India. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petitionagainst respondent No. 2 is maintainable as per the provision in the aforesaiddocuments itself. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitionersadvanced the following arguments: ( 14 ) PARA 9 of Article 13 of the Statutes which contains the provisions imposingobligation upon respondent No. 2 that it shall secure observance of National Laws. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitionersadvanced the following arguments: ( 14 ) PARA 9 of Article 13 of the Statutes which contains the provisions imposingobligation upon respondent No. 2 that it shall secure observance of National Laws. Thus, according to him, respondent No. 2 was bound to secure observance of Indianlaws which included Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. He also referredto Section 2 of Diplomatic Relation (Vienna Convention) Act 1972 as per whichprovisions set out in the scheduled to the Act of Vienna Convention on diplomaticrelation, adopted by United Nation s Conference on diplomatic intercourse andimmunitied and shall have force of law in India. He further submitted that Article 33of the Schedule of the Act provides that social security provisions applicable toemployees in State shall be observed by the diplomatic agents in relation to Indiannational employed by them. His further submission was that the diplomatic immunityprovided to the Institute and foreigners employed therein was for limited privilegesand immunities namely for the fulfilment of the objection and institutional functionsenumerated in Articles 2 and3 of the Statutes and also for exemption from Direct Taxlaws to officers in relation to their official functions. The relief sought in the writpetition was neither barred by those privileges and immunities nor be affected, inany manner by those privileges and immunities. The writ petition and relief soughttherein related to protection of rights of the petitioners arising out of Social Securitylaws including fundamental right to life i. e. , right to earn livelihood. It was alsosubmitted that juridical status conferred upon the centre and enabling provisionsin its favour to award contracts, to acquire and dispose of movable and immovableproperty and initiates legal proceedings vide section 10 of agreement and article13 of the Statutes rather makes the centre subject to Indian Law and legal processin relation to these matter. In the writ petition contract awarded to respondent No. 3 is the subject matter of the controversy. Sections 84 to 87-B Civil Procedurecode deal with suit to be instituted as against Foreign State, Foreign Rulers,ambassadors and envoys etc. and the only restriction imposed by Code was seekingof consent of Central Government. Meaning thereby suit can be instituted as againstforeign States and Foreign Rulers, Aambassadors etc. , on fulfilment of thecondition of consent of the Central Government. Hence they are not immune fromlegal process. and the only restriction imposed by Code was seekingof consent of Central Government. Meaning thereby suit can be instituted as againstforeign States and Foreign Rulers, Aambassadors etc. , on fulfilment of thecondition of consent of the Central Government. Hence they are not immune fromlegal process. They are subject to jurisdiction of Civil Court in relation to suits failingwithin jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Condition of seeking consent of Central Governmentis not applicable to proceeding other than civil proceedings instituted under CPCand such proceedings can be instituted without any restrictions. In support of thiscontention Reference may be made to following judgments:-AIR 1963 Raj 22air 1940 Calcutta 244air 1962 Madhya Pradesh 320 ( 15 ) IT was also submitted that since the proceedings in writ jurisdiction distinctfrom proceedings pertaining suit and same can be instituted without any priorconsent of Central Government. ( 16 ) EVEN in case of applicability of Section 86 Civil Procedure Code in the matter of grant of consentfor institution of suit as against Embassy of a Foreign State Supreme Court in thecase of Harbhajan Singh Dhalla Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1987 SC 9 held thatdispute between Indian Citizen/national and such Embassy is to be resolved inaccordance with law of this country (refer to para No. 8-page 11 of the judgment/report) and that the Foreign State is liable to be sued in India (refer to para No. 19 -para 14 of the judgment/report) in view of the nature of the dispute. Their lordship heldthat relationship between two countries would be better served and the image offoreign state be better established if citizen grievance are judicially investigated. This would also be in consonance with human rights (para 14 - para 19 of thereport ). Further Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was pleased to observe thatthe interpretation of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure (provisions of section86 imposing requirement of consent of Central Government) must be in consonancewith the basis principles of the Indian Constitution. It was submitted that the writpetition seeks forestalling of violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners keepinginview that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are guilty of violation of Sections 7,9 and12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. Respondent No. 2 is notregistered under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. Respondent No. 3was not licensed contractor. The violations of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)Act are dealt in Secretary, Haryana Electricity Board Vs. 2 and 3 are guilty of violation of Sections 7,9 and12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. Respondent No. 2 is notregistered under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. Respondent No. 3was not licensed contractor. The violations of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)Act are dealt in Secretary, Haryana Electricity Board Vs. Suresh and Ors. , JT1999 (2) SC 435 - which judgment is considered by Bombay High Court in O. O. C. J. Writ Petition No. 1027 of 1997 decided on 13. 8. 99 in Kachare Vahatuk Shramiksangh Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (2000 LLR page 4) and also bydivision Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Employers in Relation tomanagement of Sudamath Colliery of M/s. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. Vs. thepresiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal (2000 LLR 100 ). The Supreme Court and both the High Courts are pleased to hold that contractsystem can be said to be genuine only if it is carried on in compliance with theprovisions of 1970 Act. Anything contrary thereto lead to presumption that thepurported contract system was merely a device and a sham and introduction of amiddleman for the purpose of defeating the rights of workers (2000 LLR page 17para 37of the report ). The Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1988 Lab. I Cases 730para No. 14 page 733 - Gujrat High Court 61 FLR 253-259 to 261-Madras Highcourt 1985 (1) LLJ 492 and Kerala High Court 1986 (2) SLR 454 have held thatcontract labour will be direct employee of the principal employer if there is non-compliance with any of the provisions of Sections 7, 9 and 12 of the Contractlabour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. ( 17 ) I have considered the submissions of both the parties. According to myconsidered view, the respondent No. 2 is not authority within the meaning of Article12 of the Constitution of India in view of the aforesaid structure and constitution ofrespondent No. 2 and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable against it. ( 18 ) THERE is no force in the arguments advanced by the petitioners. One has tobear in mind that respondent No. 2 is a United Nations Organisation. It is aconglomerate of 61 members countries. By no stretch of imagination anorganisation of United Nations which is an international body be treated as"instrumentality" and or an "agency" of the Government. ( 18 ) THERE is no force in the arguments advanced by the petitioners. One has tobear in mind that respondent No. 2 is a United Nations Organisation. It is aconglomerate of 61 members countries. By no stretch of imagination anorganisation of United Nations which is an international body be treated as"instrumentality" and or an "agency" of the Government. As per the agreemententered between the respondent No. 2 and the Govt. of India, respondent No. 2 hasits seat to New Delhi. As per Section 10 of the said agreement the respondentno. 2 enjoys "immunity from every form of legal process", unless expressly waived. Immunity has not been waived by respondent No. 2. As per Section 9 of the saidagreement the Government of India agreed to extend and apply to respondent No. 2the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the Specialise Agencies of theunited Nations. The statute of respondent No. 2 has also been recognised. Article13 of the Statute also provides for immunity from every form of legal process unlessexpressly waived. To co-operate with the host state in administration of justice iswithin the discretion of respondent No. 2 as per Article 13 of its statute. That videgazette notification the Government of India has made applicable the Unitednations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 to respondent No. 2. The abovestated Act was legislated by Government of India to give effect to the Convention ofthe Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Section 3 of the Unitednations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 as applicable provides that respondentno. 2 shall also enjoy privileges and immunities as set out in the schedule i. e. inthe Convention of Privileges and Immunities. The Convention on the Privilegesand Immunities of the United Nations adopted by the General Assembly of the Unitednations on 13/02/1946. The said Article 2 provides for "immunity fromevery form of legal process". The said convention has been made part of theaforesaid act as its schedule. In these circumstances, the judgment of the Supremecourt in the case of Col. His Highness Raja Sir Harinder Singh Barar Bansbahadur Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab and Ors. reported in (1972) 4 SCC 509 cited by the counsel for respondent No. 2 becomes relevant. Thisis what Supreme Court observed in the aforesaid case. "in International Law the head of State represents the state as such and notan individual representing his own rights. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab and Ors. reported in (1972) 4 SCC 509 cited by the counsel for respondent No. 2 becomes relevant. Thisis what Supreme Court observed in the aforesaid case. "in International Law the head of State represents the state as such and notan individual representing his own rights. In that capacity he enjoys certainextra territorial privileges in other states which are friendly and in peace,known as the receiving state with the State he represents. . . . . . . . . . . . . Thereare yet other immunities in relation to applicability of the Municipal Laws, theimmunity from which are either recognised by the common law and whichcourts will not enforce as in England or as are dealt with by those lawsthemselves by affording the necessary exemption. There are yet other whichmay be regulated by treaties or International convenants". ( 19 ) ONE may also refer to the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case ofashwini Kumar Srivastava Vs. Institution of Engineers (India), Calcutta andanr. , reported in AIR 1986 All 251 wherein Institute of Engineers, whichwas a body incorporated. under the royal Charter 1935 was held not to be a stateamenable to writ jurisdiction. This court also in the case of School run byamerican Embassy held the same not to be state under Article 12 of the Constitution. (AIR 1999 Delhi 232 ). ( 20 ) THE immunity granted is all comprehensive and applicability of any nationallaws are subject to the waiver of the immunity by respondent No. 2. As respondentno. 2 has not waived the said immunity, the clause relating to observance of nationallaws will be of no help to the petitioners. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted,the effect of that would be to make the provision relating to immunity as redundant. Once this is the position in law, other arguments advanced by the petitioners whichare founded on the premise that respondent No. 2 is under an obligation to obeythe laws of this country, also lose their force. The judgment of Supreme Court in thecase of Harbhajan Singh Dhalla Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1987 SC 9 also has noapplication. Once this is the position in law, other arguments advanced by the petitioners whichare founded on the premise that respondent No. 2 is under an obligation to obeythe laws of this country, also lose their force. The judgment of Supreme Court in thecase of Harbhajan Singh Dhalla Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1987 SC 9 also has noapplication. A perusal of the judgment would show that the Supreme Court wasinterpreting the provisions of Sections 86 and 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure andit enumerated the principles/guidelines which should be kept in mind while grantingor refusing to grant sanction to sue foreign States. This judgment obviously hasno application on the facts of the present case where we are concerned themaintainability of the writ petition and have to examine whether body like respondentno. 2 is instrumentality and or agency of the State. ( 21 ) THE Respondent No. 2 by no standards be called as "establishment" within themeaning of Section 2 (e) of the Act nor it can be said that Central Government is the"appropriate Government" in respect of Respondent No. 2 under the Act. Thereforenotification dated 9. 12. 1976 would not apply to respondent No. 2. ( 22 ) IN fact the whole premise in the writ petition is unfounded as can be seen frompara 2 of the writ petition which reads as under: "para 2: That the management and control of the respondent No. 2, infactraises with the respondent No. 1 as the respondent No. 1 through Ministryof Science and Technology not only provides funds for running of therespondent No. 2 but also governs, controls and supervise the functions ofrespondent No. 2 bymaking appointments of the Controlling, Administrativeand Managerial Officers. The respondent No. 2 has been set up and locatedby the respondent No. 1 in the premises where another establishmentnamely National Institute of Immunology which is run and controlled by theministry of Science and Technology of respondent No. 1, is situated and thesaid Ministry of respondent No. 1 controls the functions of both theestablishments. The respondent No. 1 is the appropriate Government inrespect of Respondent No. 2. ( 23 ) THE averments in the aforesaid para are contrary to the factual position asalready noticed above. Once it is held that the provisions of Act are not applicable torespondent No. 2 and it even enjoys diplomatic immunity, the allegation that respondentno. The respondent No. 1 is the appropriate Government inrespect of Respondent No. 2. ( 23 ) THE averments in the aforesaid para are contrary to the factual position asalready noticed above. Once it is held that the provisions of Act are not applicable torespondent No. 2 and it even enjoys diplomatic immunity, the allegation that respondentno. 2 is violating the provisions of 7 or 12 of the Act are of no consequence at all. ( 24 ) RESULTANTLY all these submissions made by the petitioner on the presumptionthat provisions of this act are applicable and all the judgments cited by the petitioneron that basis are of no avail of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that this writpetition is not maintainable against respondent No. 2 and is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.