S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THESE three writ appeals are directed against the orders of the learned single Judge, dated June 6, 2000 and June 19, 2000 in Writ Petition nos. 562571997, 9357/1999 and 14454/1999. Hence, all the three writ appeals were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. ( 2 ) IN all the three writ petitions, what fell: for consideration in substantial term was the validity of the notification issued by the Central government bearing No. S. O. 227 (E), dated march 27, 1991 by virtue of the power conferred upon it under Section 10 of the contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) act (for short the Act ) and whether that notification applies only to the Food corporation of India (FCI) or also Central warehousing Corporation (CWC ). ( 3 ) THE Government of India issued the notification No. S. O. 227 (E), dated March 27, 1991 under Section 10 of the Act prohibiting the employment of contract labour in godowns of FCI specified in the schedule annexed to the: notification, which reads as follows:"ministry of Labour, New Delhi. March 27, 1991 notification s. C. 227 (E) - In exercise of the powers 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 Board, hereby prohibits the employment of contract labour in the godowns and depots of the Food corporation of India, specified in the schedule annexed hereto and in which the process operation or work of handling of food grains, including their loading and unloading from any means of transport, storing and stacking is carried on. Schedule 1. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Kuttipuram, Tamilnadu. 2. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Thiddodi. Tamilnadu. 3. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Kottayam, Kerala. 4. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Keonjhar, Orissa. 5. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Shillong, Meghalaya. 6. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Sungnipron, (Imphal), Manipur. 7. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Chakia, Bihar. 8. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Chapra, Bihar. 9. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Rishikesh, Uttar Pradesh. 10. Food Storage Depot, Food corporation of India, Mahboob Nagar, cwc, Andhra Pradesh. 11. 6. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Sungnipron, (Imphal), Manipur. 7. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Chakia, Bihar. 8. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Chapra, Bihar. 9. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Rishikesh, Uttar Pradesh. 10. Food Storage Depot, Food corporation of India, Mahboob Nagar, cwc, Andhra Pradesh. 11. Food Storage Depot, Food corporation of India, Rayanapadu, c. W. C. , Andhra Pradesh. 12. Food Storage Depot, Food corporation of India, Machilipatnam, c. W. C. , Andhra Pradesh. 13. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Karimnagar, C. W. C. , Andhra pradesh. 14. Food Storage Depot. Food corporation of India. Jagtial. S. W. C. , andhra Pradesh. 15. Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Nandyal, C. W. C. Andhra pradesh. 16. Food Storage Depot, Food corporation of India, Bodhan, C. W. C. Andhra Pradesh. 17. Food Storage Depot, Food corporation of India, Sarangapur, c. W. C. Andhra Pradesh. . 18. Food Storage Depot, Food corporation of India, Churiabari, (NEF Region ). 19. Food Storage Depot, Food corporation of India, A Nagar, (NDF Region ). 20. Food Storage Depot, Food corporation of India, Indore, madhya Pradesh. 21. Food Storage Depot, Food corporation of India, Satna, madhya Pradesh. 22. Food Storage Depot, Food corporation of India, Raipur, madhya Pradesh. 23. Food Storage Depot, food Corporation of India, baraviwal, Punjab. 24. Food Storage Depot, food Corporation of India, bhagwanwala, Punjab. 25. Food Storage Depot, food Corporation of India, sangrana Sahib, Punjab. 26. Food Storage Depot, food Corporaiion of India, banga, Punjab. (F. No. U. 23013/l/88-L-Vol. II) m. L. Koul, director General (Labour Welfare) jt. Secy. " ( 4 ) FOOD Corporation of India Workers union, who is the appellant in Writ Appeal no. 758 of 2000, filed Writ Petition No. 5825 of 1997 seeking implementation of the notification dated March 27, 1991. The FCI which is the appellant in Writ Appeal no. 759/2000, filed Writ Petition No. 9357 of 1999 challenging the Notification to the extent it is made applicable with regard to the abolition of contract labour in the godowns mentioned at sl. Nos. 10 to 17 of the schedule appended to the notification. The FCI which is the appellant in Writ Appeal no. 759/2000, filed Writ Petition No. 9357 of 1999 challenging the Notification to the extent it is made applicable with regard to the abolition of contract labour in the godowns mentioned at sl. Nos. 10 to 17 of the schedule appended to the notification. Writ Petition No. 14454 of 1999 was filed by the Food Corporation of india Workers Union, out of which Writ appeal No. 868 of 2000 arises, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in continuing the contract labour even after prohibition notification issued under Section 10 (1) of the Act, on March 27, 1991 as illegal and void and consequently to declare that the workers working in Food storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, machilipatnam (CWC) are departmental workers of the second respondent and are entitled for payment on par with regular departmental workers. The godowns at Sl. Nos. 10 to 13 and 15 to 17 are owned by the CWC while the godowns at S1. No. 14 is owned by the State Warehousing Corporation swc for short ). ( 5 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are that FCI has been engaging number of contract labour at various places, such as godowns and other places owned by them directly. The FCI also stores the food grains in the warehouses owned by the Central or State Governments. In view of the allegation that the contract labour in FCI was not treated in accordance with the provisions of the Act, a committee was constituted to go into the working of the contract labour system in the depots under the control of FCI throughout the country under the leadership of Mr. Asnani and the said committee recommended abolition of contract labour system in various places. Basing on the recommendations of the committee and after consultation with the central Board, the Central Government issued notification dated March 27, 1991 prohibiting employment of contract labour in Godowns and depots of FCI specified in the schedule. The schedule contains 26 establishments. But, in the instant case, we are only concerned with the establishments figuring at Serial Nos. 10 to 17. The schedule contains 26 establishments. But, in the instant case, we are only concerned with the establishments figuring at Serial Nos. 10 to 17. The case of the Union in this regard is that number of contract labour were engaged for handling and transport of the FCI goods at the cwc godowns at Mahaboobnagar, rayanapadu, Machilipatnam, Karimnagar, nandyal, Sarangapur and Bodhan and the State ware-Housing Corporation (SWC) godown at jagtial. The contract labour is engaged by the cwc for loading and unloading the goods of fci. It is also their case that apart from the goods of FCI, the goods of other organisations are also being kept in the godowns, but major portion of the goods belonged to the FCI. Since the contract labour engaged by the CWC for handling the fci goods form major part of the storage, they have to be treated as the contract labour engaged for the purpose of FCI godowns even though they were directly engaged by the cwc and that the engagement of such contract labour should be abolished consequent upon the Notification issued by the Central Government, dated March 27, 1991. It is also their case that CWC and SWC appoint various labour contractors for storing the commodities brought by various customers including the FCI and licences are issued to such contractors under the provisions of the Act. It is the grievance of the Union that since the engagement of contract labour has been abolished in the depots of the FCI, it should also be presumed that the contract labour engaged by the CWC for loading and unloading operations of the fci goods also should be abolished and they have to be absorbed in the establishment of the FCI as regular workers for handling and transporting the goods of FCI. ( 6 ) THE CWC challenged the Notification on the ground that it does not apply to the CWC as the system of contract labour prevailing in the Corporation was not abolished by any notification as required under Section 10 (1) of the Act and therefore, it has no application at all to the establishments of CWC. However, it is stated by the CWC that the food grains of the fci are stored in the godowns and they are loaded and unloaded by the contract labour engaged by the CWC and handling and transporting charges are collected from the customers including the FCI. However, it is stated by the CWC that the food grains of the fci are stored in the godowns and they are loaded and unloaded by the contract labour engaged by the CWC and handling and transporting charges are collected from the customers including the FCI. Therefore, the notification does not apply to the contract labour engaged by the CWC at various places referred to in Schedule at Serial Nos. 10 to 17 excluding Serial No. 14, which belongs to swc. It is also stated that the tenders are called for periodically for appointing the contractors and most of the contracts are the Labour contract Co-operative Societies which are given necessary license by the competent authority under the Act for engaging the contract labour and the contractors appointed by them would be utilised for the purpose of handling and transporting work of its customers including the goods of the FCI. ( 7 ) THE FCI in its writ petition submits that the Depots referred to in the Schedule at Serial nos. 10 to 17 do not belong to them and hire charges are paid for storing the essential commodities procured by them and pay the necessary charges as levied by them for storing the commodities. The FCI did not employ any contract labour for transporting or for loading or unloading their goods at the CWC Centres. It will be done only by the contract labour engaged by the CWC or SWC, as the case may be, and the FCI pays the necessary charges to the CWC and SWC in accordance with the terms and conditions of storage. Therefore, the FCI contends that the Notification has no application insofar as it relates to the storage of the FCI goods in CWC and SWC Centres mentioned at Serial nos. 10 to 17 of the Schedule. With regard to other Centres, it is stated that the contract labour system has been abolished as directed by the central Government in the Notification referred to above. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge framed the following two points for consideration and decision:1. Whether the Notification is applicable to the contract labour engaged by the CWC. 2. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge framed the following two points for consideration and decision:1. Whether the Notification is applicable to the contract labour engaged by the CWC. 2. Whether the FCI has been engaging the contract labour for handling and transporting the stocks to the CWC Centres and whether the contract labour is entitled for absorption as regular workers of the FCI. The learned Judge held that the impugned notification is not applicable to the contract labour engaged by the CWC and SWC. So holding, the learned Judge dismissed W. P. No. 5825 of 1997 filed by the FCI Workers Union and allowed Writ Petition No. 9357 of 1999 filed by fci. The Writ Petition No. 14454 of 1999 filed by the FCI Workers Union was also dismissed following the Judgment rendered in W. P. No. 5825/1997, dated June 6, 2000. Hence, these writ appeals. ( 9 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments under appeal. Sri A. Ramlingeswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would strenuously contend that the learned single judge has erred in law in holding that the impugned notification does not apply to the contract labour engaged in the godowns and depots at Sl. Nos. 10 to 17 of the schedule appended to the notification dated March 27, 1991 issued under Section 10 (1) of the Act. The learned counsel would highlight that the correspondences placed before the Court would clearly go to show that the CWC was acting as an agent of the FCI and that the tender notifications were issued by the CWC calling for applications for appointment of the contractors for supply of the contract labour on behalf of the FCI and that was done by the cwc as an agent of FCI and, therefore, the contractors appointed by the CWC should be regarded as contractors of the FCI. The learned standing counsel for the Central Government supported the contention of Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao. Mr. The learned standing counsel for the Central Government supported the contention of Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao. Mr. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the FCI, on the other hand, would contend that there is no privity of contract between the management of the FCI and the contractors appointed by the CWC and swc, and, therefore, under no circumstance, the contractors appointed by the CWC and/or swc could be regarded as contractors of the fci within the meaning of that term under the act. The learned counsel would also refer to the materials on record and point out that even according to the pleading of the Union, the contractors are appointed by the CWC after issuing tender notifications and that there is nothing on record to show that contractors are appointed by the CWC or SWC on behalf of fci, as its agent. ( 10 ) IN view of the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the only substantial question that arises for our consideration is whether CWC/swc appointed the contractors to supply labour as an agent of fci, or they appointed the contractors for their own purposes. Nothing is placed on record to show that the contractors are appointed by the cwc/swc as agents of the FCI. It needs to be noticed that all the contractors appointed by the cwc/swc had obtained licences under the act to be enrolled as registered contractors with the CWC/sw and not with FCI. A careful reading of the notification clearly shows that the Government has abolished the contract labour in the FCI Godowns and Depots of the food Corporation of India, and not at the places where the FCI goods are stored. It is trite that under Section 10 of the Act, the appropriate government is empowered to prohibit employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Act mandates that before a notification under sub-section (1) is issued, the appropriate government should consult the Central Board or the State Board, as the case may be, and having regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment, particularly, taking into account the relevant factors enumerated in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub- section (2) should issue the notice. The word that occurring in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act in the context is referable to FCI only and not CWC or SWC. Be that as it may, it is nobody s case that the impugned notification applies to the contract labour employed by the CWC/swc at its depots and godowns. In that view of the matter, we do not find any substantive ground or weighty reason to interfere with the orders of the learned single Judge. The writ appeals are devoid of merits and they are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.