VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioners/accused seek quashing of the proceedings in STC No. 73 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, macherla, Guntur district, in which the petitioner are sought to be prosecuted for the offence of contravention of Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 (for short the Act ) punishable under Section 23 of the said act. ( 2 ) THE complaint against the petitioners proceeds on the basis that under notification dated 9-12-1976 issued by the Central Government, employment of contract labour for the duties of 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, is prohibited. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have employed workers on contract basis for the duty of providing security guards to Power Grid corporation India Limited, at Tallapalli village, Macherla Mandal, Guntur district. It may be mentioned that petitioners No. 1 is said to be the General Manager and 2nd petitioner is the Manager of the said corporation at Macherla. ( 3 ) THUS, the employment of contract labour for these duties is the alleged act constituting the offence of violation of section 10 (1) punishable under Section 23 of the said Act. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that what has been prohibited under the notification issued by the Government is employment of contract labour for the work, among others, of watching the buildings. It is contended that the contract labour employed by the petitioners are the ex-servicemen who are skilled and trained in security duties and who have been employed under an agreement with the association of ex- servicemen. ( 5 ) IT is pointed out with reference to the terms of the agreement under which these workmen have been employed, a copy of which is made available with this petition, that their duties include various security operations which are quite distinct and different from the duties of mere watching the buildings. For instance, it is pointed out that under clause 3. 3 of the agreement, their duty includes providing safety cover to protect the premises/ complex and their contents from damage by fire or water. Under clause 3. For instance, it is pointed out that under clause 3. 3 of the agreement, their duty includes providing safety cover to protect the premises/ complex and their contents from damage by fire or water. Under clause 3. 4, it is provided that they will attend to the duty of providing assistance to Power Grid in case of strikes, riots and labour unrest. Yet another term of the contract postulates that these workmen shall man security posts identified by officer-in-charge round the clock for performing watch and ward duties and such other duties as are allocated by officer-in-charge from time to time. Their duties also include, under- clause 3. 6, assisting and actively participating in removal of unauthorised occupants/ encroachments from the premises of the power Grid. Under-clause 3. 7 they are required to monitor card punching in time machine to prevent and detect unauthorised punching/signing. They are also expect to maintain liaison with civil and police authorities of the area/district where security coverage has been given. Yet another important duty that would be assigned to these workers under contract is ensuring entry of the employees of the Power Grid/ vip, etc. , into the premises under all conditions including hindrances, dharnas, strike and gherao, etc. , caused by any individual or group of persons. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the nature of duties assigned to the workers, employed on contract basis, it is apparent that they are not meant to attend to mere watch and ward duties, but the duties are of all together different dimensions aimed at providing comprehensive security to the establishment under the petitioners. The duties, as it is, obvious entail certain skills and training to equip them for attending to the work assigned to them. ( 7 ) UNDER these circumstances, there is some force in the contention that these workmen cannot be considered to fall within the ambit of the notification referred to above. In support of the his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Padmanabha Reddy relies on an unreported judgment of the Delhi High court dated 15-3-2000 in Deo Sunder Jha and others v. Union of India, CWA Nos. 4211 of 1997 and Batch); a copy of which has been filed along with the petition. In support of the his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Padmanabha Reddy relies on an unreported judgment of the Delhi High court dated 15-3-2000 in Deo Sunder Jha and others v. Union of India, CWA Nos. 4211 of 1997 and Batch); a copy of which has been filed along with the petition. The delhi High Court, in the background of similar facts, held that those engaged in performance of security duties cannot be considered as workers employed on watch and ward duties and that the personnel on security duties cannot be held to be covered by the prohibited category notified under section 10 (1) of the Act. ( 8 ) UNDER the above circumstances, it has to be held that the allegations in the complaint do not make out an offence of contravention of Section 10 (1) punishable under Section 23 of the Act. In view of this, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in STC No. 73 of 2000, dated 16-8-2000, on the file of the Judicial First class Magistrate, Macherla, Guntur District, are quashed.