JUDGMENT This writ petition is made by a registered Trade Union represented through the General Secretary and other persons showing as the part and parcel of such Trade Union for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 in respect of the petitioners in their respective employment and various other connected reliefs. 2. Originally a petition was made before this Court being C. R. No. 4221 (W) of 1990. In such writ petition Union of India did not appear to oppose the contention of the petitioners like today. However, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the Union of India through the Secretary of Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation to consider the case of the petitioners upon noticing to the others i.e. Reserve Bank of India, Regional Labour Commissioner, Labour Contractor of the Reserve Bank of India etc. By a Office Memorandum No. 40(10)/92-C2 dated 29th March, 1993 the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Calcutta intimated the General Secretary of the Union that no case has been made out to prohibit contract labour under Section 10 of the Act in loading and unloading or other specified operations relating to coin boxes/currency notes of Reserve Bank of India's Office at Calcutta. By such letter such authority informed that the above communication has been made pursuant to the order of the High Court and with direction of the Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, Union of India, respondent No.1. 3. According to Mr. Asok De, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the workers are working in the organisation in similar manner for a period of 30 years. Time to time the contractors or name lenders are changed. They have wasted their best part of the lives in this service without any regularisation. 3. According to Mr. Asok De, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the workers are working in the organisation in similar manner for a period of 30 years. Time to time the contractors or name lenders are changed. They have wasted their best part of the lives in this service without any regularisation. Section (4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 says that it applies (a) to every establishment in which 20 or more workmen are employed or were employed on any day of preceding 12 months as contract labour; (b) to every contractor who employs or who employed on any day of the preceding 12 months 20 or more workmen provided that the appropriate Government may, after giving not less than 2 months notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official Gazettee, apply the provisions of this Act to any establishment or contractor employing such number of workmen less than 20 as may be specified in the notification. Therefore, either less than 20 or more than 20 workmen if working then they are entitled to get the benefit of law although the petitioners in number are more than 20 persons i.e. 22 persons. 4. In (1) 2000 (7) SCC 109 , G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, pantnagar, Nainital v. State of U.P. & Ors. the Supreme Court held that the socialistic concept of the society as laid down in part 3 and part 4 of the Constitution ought to be implemented in the true spirit of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has in more occasions than one stated that democratic socialism aims to end poverty, ignorance, disease and inequality of opportunity. In coming to such conclusion the Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in (2) Secretary, HSSB v. Suresh & Ors. reported in 1999(3) SCC 601 that there is, however, a total unanimity of judicial pronouncements to the effect that in the event the contract labour is employed in an establishment for seasonal working the question of abolition would not arise. reported in 1999(3) SCC 601 that there is, however, a total unanimity of judicial pronouncements to the effect that in the event the contract labour is employed in an establishment for seasonal working the question of abolition would not arise. But in the event of the same being perennial in nature, that is to say, in the event of the engagement of labour force through the intermediary which is otherwise in the ordinary course of events and involves continuity in the work, the legislature is candid enough to record its abolition since involvement of the contractor may have its social evil of labour exploitation together and thus the contractor ought to go out of the scene bringing together the principal employer and the contractor labourers rendering the employment as direct, and resultantly a direct employee. Even in coming to such conclusion earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in (3) Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union reported in 1997(9) SCC 337 has been followed:- "Needless to note at this juncture that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, being a beneficial piece of legislation as engrafted in the statute book, and to receive the widest possible interpretation in regard to the words used and unless words are taken to their maximum amplitude, it would be a violent injustice to the framers of the law. As a matter of fact, the law is well settled by this Court and we need not dilate by reason thereafter to the effect that the law Courts exist for the society and in the event of there being a question posed in the matter of interpretation of a beneficial piece of legislation, question of interpreting the same with a narrow pedantic approach would not be justified. On the contrary, the widest possible meaning and amplitude ought to be offered to the expressions used as otherwise the entire legislation would lose its efficacy and contract labour would be left at the mercy of the intermediary. As noticed above the draconian concept of law is no longer available for the purpose of interpreting the social and beneficial piece of legislation specially in the wake of the new millennium. As noticed above the draconian concept of law is no longer available for the purpose of interpreting the social and beneficial piece of legislation specially in the wake of the new millennium. The democratic polity and to service with full vigour the socialist status as enshrined in the Constitution ought to be given its full play and it is in this perspective the question arises-is it permissible in the new millennium to decry the cry of the labour force desirous of absorption after working for more than 240 days in an establishment and having their workings supervised and administered by an agency within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution-the answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative-the law Courts exist for the society and in the event law Courts fill the requirement in accordance with principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the law Courts and to rise up to the occasion to meet and redress the exploitation of the people. The expression "regulation" cannot possibly be read as contra public interest but in the interest of the public. Reliance on the decision in the case of Dina Nath v. National Fertilisers Limited in support of the Board's contention, however, stands diluted by reason of the decisions of this Court in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union. The ratio as has been decided in Air India Case appears to have softened the edges of Dina Nath ratio. While dealing with this issue is Air India Case this Court has, as a matter of fact taken note of more or less the entire catena, of cases partaining to contract labour and we do thus feel it wholly unnecessary to deal with the same in extenso excepting however regarding some observations of this Court in Air India Case as below: 'In this behalf, it is necessary to recaptulate that on abolition of the contract labour system, by necessary implication, the principal employer is under statutory obligation to absorb the contract labour. The linkage between the contractor and the employee stood snapped and direct relationship stood restored between the principal employer and the contract labour as its employees. Considered from this perspective, all the workmen in the respective services working on contract labour are required to be absorbed in the establishment of the appellant." 5. The linkage between the contractor and the employee stood snapped and direct relationship stood restored between the principal employer and the contract labour as its employees. Considered from this perspective, all the workmen in the respective services working on contract labour are required to be absorbed in the establishment of the appellant." 5. It has also been observed by the Supreme Court in such judgment that when there is a question of genuine labour system prevailing with the Board then obviously it has to be abolished as per Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act after following the procedure laid down therein. But, where the contractor is mere name lender and procured labour from the open market he is almost a broker or an agent for that purpose. 6. Mr. Subrata Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, Reserve Bank of India, contended that Bank is an unnecessary party to the proceeding but at the same time contended before this Court that the appropriate Government rightly determined in exercise of the power conferred upon it by virtue of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. He was• also contended that the contractor does not more than 19 majdoors at any point of time to handle the Bank's remitances as per the provisions of the Contract Labour. Therefore, (Regulation and Abolition) Act and Rules made thereunder are not applicable. It is further contended that as per the terms of the contract in between respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4 for transaction of labour the period came to an end on 31st October, 1993. Accordingly, the contract for such work has been awarded to M/s. Loknath Clear Agency with effect from 1st November, 1993. As such there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner against the respondent No.2 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in so far it relates to respondent No.2. Without prejudice to the above, the bank had entered into an agreement with M/s. Bifal Sardar, 9, Goods Shed Eastern Railway, Howrah regarding transportation of remittances of bank's treasures. Without prejudice to the above, the bank had entered into an agreement with M/s. Bifal Sardar, 9, Goods Shed Eastern Railway, Howrah regarding transportation of remittances of bank's treasures. The contractor was entrusted to provide labour and transport in connection with remittance of treasury at different places to carry boxes containing remittances of fresh notes received from Bank Note Press Dewas and Currency Note Press Nasik from Howrah/Sealdah to Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta to lift the coins from Alipore Mint to the Office of Calcutta and also to lift the same again from Calcutta Office to Alipore Mint etc. as per bank's requirements. Bank was not concerned about the appointment or engagement of labour directly. The bank received a Certificate from the contractor that they have engage 19 majdurs for the same, the bank issued 19 tokens to the contractor. The names are also given in the list in the affidavit of Reserve Bank of India. It is also contended that the list of names of three other petitioners have not been submitted by such contractor. As the contractor does not engage more than 19 majdurs at any point of time to handle bank remittances the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Rules made thereunder are not applicable. It was further contended that this job is not perennial in nature. On many days in a month no work was handled by the contractor and even the employment of labourers is not for the whole day. According to him, the Reserve Bank of India can only be directed to refer the matter to the Central Government for its due consideration, if any. So far, 1999(3) SCC 601 (supra), is concerned learned Senior Counsel wanted to distinguish by showing Paragraph-7 of the same and to establish that the matter was decided on a particular factual basis which is not available here. He has reminded the Court about the scope and ambit of the Paragraph-20 of the said judgment. If there is a genuine contract system then obviously it has to be abolished as per the Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act after following the procedure laid down therein. According to him, this is one of such cases. Therefore, the petitioner cannot get any relief whatsoever. If there is a genuine contract system then obviously it has to be abolished as per the Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act after following the procedure laid down therein. According to him, this is one of such cases. Therefore, the petitioner cannot get any relief whatsoever. In the instant case, I find admittedly a person was named as contractor, i.e. M/s. Bifal Sardar and subsequently the work was awarded to M/s. Loknath Clearing Agency but there is no change of employees. It is also mentioned that names of the 19 employees instead of 22 employees are available as per token. The spelling of the most of the names are different from what has been furnished to the bank by the contractor. They granted 19 persons in doing the works in bank's vaults, silver refinery etc. Therefore, it is unknown whether the 3 other persons were not al all working under the contractor or not. Although it is declared that the work was not perennial in nature and neither for the whole of the day and whole of the month the labours are working but no particulars have been furnished by the Reserve Bank of India. On the contrary, from their own averments it cannot be said that the job is not perennial in nature. It is necessary to be recorded hereunder that an application of addition of parties was allowed by which some other applicants were added as a party respondents herein who are also claiming the similar right in respect of the regularisation of their respective services by abolishing the contract labour system. Thus, the number cannot form any good defence in fact. Moreover, in the law there is no hard and fast rule that the numbers of the contract labour should be more than 20. But, it may apply less than 20 in the proviso of Section 14 of the said Act. It appears to this Court from me nature of continuance of work that the same cannot be avoided from being a work of perennial in nature. These observations of the Court go directly against the observation of the appropriate Government duly communicated on 29th March, 1993 being Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. It appears to this Court from me nature of continuance of work that the same cannot be avoided from being a work of perennial in nature. These observations of the Court go directly against the observation of the appropriate Government duly communicated on 29th March, 1993 being Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. A mechanical change of the contractors one after another without affecting very existence of the labour system goes directly in conformity with the abolition of contract labour system under Section 10 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a genuine contract system which ought not to be abolished. A bare denial of non-existence of the service of the contract labour on the part of the Reserve Bank of India cannot be found to be a good defence at all. Therefore, since the objection of less than 20 workmen is not very much backed with the factual aspect and Court already allowed some other employed to join hands to ,make the numbers more than the total number of employees under Section 1 (4) of the Act and since it is apparent that the work is perennial in nature without any genuine contract system as per the observation of the Supreme Court in 1999(3) SCC 601 (supra), conclusion of the Governmental authority, as communicated, held to be wrongful. 7. Therefore, the decision to that effect stands set aside and the communication on the basis of such decision stands quashed. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the Reserve Bank of India to forward the matter to the Central Government within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of this order without fail and the Central Government is also directed to finalise this issue upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order thereon within a period of 1 month from the date of communication by the Reserve Bank of India in the light of the judgment and order passed by this Court. However, no order is passed as to costs. 8. At the time of delivering the judgment, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended before this Court that 7 workers have already been ousted. However, no order is passed as to costs. 8. At the time of delivering the judgment, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended before this Court that 7 workers have already been ousted. However, since the writ petition has already been disposed of today, ousting of service of the workers shall be abide by the result of the decision to be taken by the authority concerned pursuant to the order of this Court. Let an urgent xeroxed certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties within 2 weeks from the date of putting the requisites.