Brijesh Kumar,C J.— This writ appeal is preferred by the Food Corporation of India against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.6.93 in Civil Rule No. 3482 of 1991. The dispute relates to admissibility of certain benefits to the Labour Co-operative Societies under the circular dated 16.3.89. 2. We have heard Sri AR Barthakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri AC Borbora, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The Food Corporation of India awards handling contract for the purpose of loading and unloading of food grain bags for placing them in godowns and their handling at the point of their transportation. In this connection, it appears that it was thought appropriate that such labour forms its own co-operative society and certain benefits were envisaged by means of circular dated January 27, 1977 issued by the Food Corporation of India. By means of the said circular, such co-operative societies were exempt from furnishing earnest money with the tenders and the payment of security deposit was made by deduction from the admitted bills. The respondent co-operative society was registered in the year 1985. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no dispute about the benefits as admissible under the circular of 1977 referred to above. Later, it appears that the Food Corporation of India though of providing some more benefits to the Labour Co-operative Societies and in that connection issued another circular dated 16.3.89, a copy of the said circular has been annexed as Annexure IV to the writ appeal. The benefits envisaged under the above noted circular of 1989 are as follows : (1) Extend assistance in the form of Monetary Subsidy for paying to the staff of the co-operatives on standard scale, lapsed over a period of three years 100% in the first year, 50% in the second year and 25% in the third year and 'Nil' from the fourth year. (2) Extend assistance in the form of accommodation and furniture for the office of the co-operative societies on a standard scale. (3) Provide furniture and utensils for the canteens to be run by the Labour Co­operative Societies. 4. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that these concessions/benefits are admissible to the societies which are formed after the date of issuance of circular and not to the existing societies. (3) Provide furniture and utensils for the canteens to be run by the Labour Co­operative Societies. 4. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that these concessions/benefits are admissible to the societies which are formed after the date of issuance of circular and not to the existing societies. To support the above contention, our attention is drawn to the language used in the circular where it says that in order to encourage the formation of Labour Co-operative Societies, it has been decided to allow some additional concessions in addition to which were provided by circular dated May 25, 1981. In the first part of the circular dated 16.3.89 also it is mentioned that the Corporation has to actively participate in the formation of the co-operative societies and to give helping hand d to them with a view to implement the policy of sponsoring co-operative societies to replace the contract system in a phased manner. It is no doubt true that the circular has been issued in a manner that in the first blush it may give an idea that it may apply to only the co-operative societies which may be formed after coming into force of the above noted circular. But on analysing the circular for the purpose for which it is meant it would lead to the conclusion that the benefits made £ admissible under the circular shall also be applicable to the existing co-operative societies as has been held, and in our view rightly, by the learned Single Judge. The three benefits which have been indicated in the circular dated 16.3.89 are for assistance by way of monetary subsidy for paying to the staff on standard scale. This monetary subsidy is to be provided in a phased manner for a period of three years which reduces in the given proportion in the succeeding years and in the fourth it becomes 'Nil'. The other benefit is for accommodation and furniture for the office of the co-operative societies on a standard scale and the third is to provide furniture and utensils for the canteens to be run by the Labour Co­operative Societies. The whole idea behind the circular is that the Labour Co­operative Societies be brought at par with the standard co-operative societies in the matter of scale of pay of their staff as well as in other respects. The whole idea behind the circular is that the Labour Co­operative Societies be brought at par with the standard co-operative societies in the matter of scale of pay of their staff as well as in other respects. There may be existing co-operative societies which may riot be very sound financially so as to conform to the required standard of a co-operative society. For example, a Labour Co-operative Society handling the work of the Food Corporation of India may not be having accommodation and proper furniture for its office, or it has to have utensils, etc for running its canteen and is not in a position to pay the standard scale to its staff, in that event, it would not stand on a different footing from a Labour Co-operative Society which may be newly formed in respect of which concessions, benefits are to be provided in the light of the circular dated 16.3.89 so that it may have the required standard of such co-operative society in the matter of scale of pay at the staff and an office of the society. A Labour Co-operative Society, in view of the Food Corporation of India, requires a canteen for its members and utensils, and furniture for the canteen as well as for the office. 5. In case, a Labour Co-operative Society, as observed earlier, is unable to conform to the above standards, it is not understandable as to why in that event the benefits admissible under the circular dated 16.3.89 would not be made available to such society even though it may have been formed prior to coming into force of the circular in 1989. The time of formation of a Labour Co-operative Society does not seem to be the dominating factor, which may be given undue weight in properly interpreting the meaning and real import of the circular in question. The real spirit with which the circular seems to have been issued by the Food Corporation of India is that the Labour Co-operative Societies should not lag behind in maintaining the required standards like other co-operative societies. If the Labour Co-operative Societies maintain such standards it may encourage formation of more such Labour Co-operative Societies. The real spirit with which the circular seems to have been issued by the Food Corporation of India is that the Labour Co-operative Societies should not lag behind in maintaining the required standards like other co-operative societies. If the Labour Co-operative Societies maintain such standards it may encourage formation of more such Labour Co-operative Societies. No distinction can be made on the basis of date of formation of a society that such standards are required to be there only in respect of the societies formed after a particular date and not in respect of the societies formed before any particular date. Therefore, in our view, much stress which has been given on the date of formation of a Labour Co-operative Society has no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. We are, therefore, of the view that the benefits as envisaged under the circular dated 16.3.89 would also be admissible to the existing societies. We hardly find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Shri AR Barthakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, stated that the godowns have been shifted from Dibrugarh to Tinsukia and the respondent-society is no more there for the purpose of handling contracts of the Food Corporation of India. This averment on behalf of the appellant has been disputed by Shri AC Borbora, learned counsel appearing for the respondents who stated that the respondent co-operative society is very much in existence as well as the godowns of the appellant. He further stated that the respondent co-operative society undertakes the contract of handling in Dibrugarh or any area around it. The above position has been indicated orally by both the sides and it does not seem to have been there before the learned Single Judge. We will, therefore, not like to go into this factual aspect any more, particularly at this stage. 7. In view of the discussions held above, the appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs.