JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These three petitions have been filed by the petitioners who were appointed as Security Guards to men the check posts set up under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act vide order dated 11.12.1989. The appointments were made through the contracting agency M/s. Goliath Detective (P) Ltd. 3. Shri Amrit Lal was appointed as Security Guard to men the check post even prior to sanction filing the vacancies through some private agencies whereas Shri Lokesh Dixit and Nandlal had been appointed vide order dated 18.12.1989. Since their first appointments all the three persons were continuing to hold post and discharge their functions as security guards at different check posts set up under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as per the instructions issued by the competent authority, Some of the orders have been placed on record in each of the writ petitions about their continuing engagements as Security Guards on check posts under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act until 11.5.2001 about which there is no dispute. 4. Vide order dated 11,5.2001, which is purported to have been passed in pursuance of the direction of the State Government dated 24.4.2001, all the persons engaged on contract basis were ordered to be terminated. Consequently, the services of the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 11.5,2001. The order dated 24.4.2001 is said to have been issued in pursuance Of the legislative policy contained in the Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Service and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 which prohibited continued engagement of any temporary employee as defined in the Act and also imposed complete prohibition on making any claim for regularisation or adjudication of claim of the employees continuing since long in service as defined in public services. 5. Aggrieved with the said terminations, the present writ petitions were filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the Act of 1999 and also seeking a mandamus quashing the order dated 11.5.2001 terminating the services of the petitioners. A prayer for regularisation of the services, which have continued uninterruptedly for almost twelve years, was also made. 6. We may notice that certain provisions of the Act of 1999, viz. Sections 9 and 11 read in the light of Section 19, have been held to be ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Court in Bhawani Singh & Anr. 6. We may notice that certain provisions of the Act of 1999, viz. Sections 9 and 11 read in the light of Section 19, have been held to be ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Court in Bhawani Singh & Anr. v. State & Anr., (2002) 3 WLC (Raj.) 728 after noticing the cases where consideration for regularisation of long services becomes a constitutional obligation within the ambit of principles of regularisation and principles of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a law made by the parliament, 7. Apart from aforesaid, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the termination was wholly arbitrary, unjust and in breach of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the security guards are within the category of Class-IV employees and are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contention about the regularisation is founded on 12 years uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioners in each case. They are working against the existing vacancies, still in existence, to men the check post for which they are otherwise fully eligible, therefore, their continuance on the post, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners ought to be on regular basis. 8. On the other hand, the principal contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has been that since the petitioners' employment was a contract employment through M/s. Goliath Detective (P) Ltd., on employee-employer relationship ever existed between the petitioners and the respondent Commercial Taxes Department of the State and therefore, the question of termination of the services of the petitioners and their regularisation by the answering respondents does not arise. The respondents have merely terminated their contract with Mis. Goliath Detective (P) Ltd. As a result of the said termination of contract, the services of the petitioners stood repatriated to their principal employer i.e. M/s, Goliath Detective (P) Ltd. In view thereof the petitioners have also not suffered any loss arid are not entitled to any relief. In alternative. it was also submitted by Mr. Lodha that, at any rate, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the termination was invalid, instead of reinstatement, adequate compensation would be just relief to be granted to the petitioners. 9. In alternative. it was also submitted by Mr. Lodha that, at any rate, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the termination was invalid, instead of reinstatement, adequate compensation would be just relief to be granted to the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a bench decision of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writs) No. 448/1997, State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Suresh Chandra & Ors. along with three other connected special appeals decided on 7.4.2003. It has been contended by Sh. Joshi, learned 20 counsel for the petitioners, that the facts of the present case are identical and the ratio of the said decision covers the present case. 10. This contention is not accepted by Mr. Lodha, learned counsel for the respondents who has urged that the aforesaid decision has been rendered on the facts existing on the record of all those cases. The 25 respondents in the aforesaid appeals were all Lower Division Clerks and not the Security Guards and therefore, the same cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that all the relevant facts have now been placed on record. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the 30 material placed on record. We are of the opinion that in view of principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors., reported in 2001(7) SCC page 1 , which has also been relied on by the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Suresh Chand & Ors. , (supra) consequently, the case of the petitioners merit acceptance. 12. On a reference being made by two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court having noticed the conflict of opinion between different benches including three judges bench of the Court on the interpretation of expression, "appropriate government" in Section 2(1)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, in Section 2(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and on the question of automatic absorption of the contract Labour in the establishment of the principal employer as a consequence of abolition notification, the matter came to be heard and decided by a Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court. In the matter of relation between the workmen and the establishment at which workmen are employed through a contractor and the establishment at which they discharge their function and whether in such cases the establishment at which the contract is required to discharge his duties, relationship of principal employer and the employee was considered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The Court considered the definition of 'workman' and 'establishment' as under: "The word 'workman' is defined in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms 'establishment' and 'workman' shows that a workman I engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship with the principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The circumstances under which contract labour be treated as direct workman of the s principal employer as an exception to general rule was approved as laid down in the case of the Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ramanlal Chimanlal & Ors., reported in 1974(3) SCC page 66 and in the case of Hussainbhai, Calicut v. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union Kozhikode & Ors., (1978)(4) SCC page 257 ". 13. The two exceptions to the general rule that a contract labour does not result in a master and servant relationship between the owner of the establishment where a contract labour discharge his functions briefly stated can be said to be one where the contract was found to be non-genuine in which case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal 15 employer were held intact and in reality the employees of the principal employer himself. This principle is to be called out from the decision in Hussain Bhai's case (supra). "The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the worker's subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the worker's subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractu is of no consequence when on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the management, not the immediate contractor. Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal from depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer, based on Articles 38, 39, 42 and 43-A of the Constitution. The Court must be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearance. To this the Court accepted if there is total dissociation in fact between the disowning management and the aggrieved workmen, the employment is, in substance and in real-life terms, by another. The Management's adventitious connections cannot ripen into real employment." 14. The aforesaid principles were referred to by the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (supra), with approval. 15. The second exception which was approved by the Supreme Court was principle emanating from Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd. case (supra) in which the task of running the canteen by the establishment was entrusted to a cooperative society, and it employed the workmen in the canteen. The question arise whether the workmen employed in the canteen were employees of the company for whose purposes the canteen was run. Ltd. case (supra) in which the task of running the canteen by the establishment was entrusted to a cooperative society, and it employed the workmen in the canteen. The question arise whether the workmen employed in the canteen were employees of the company for whose purposes the canteen was run. The so Cowl, approving the decision of the Industrial Court said that there was statutory obligation on the part of the mills to provide a canteen and this obligation had been discharged by the mills by entrusting that task to the co-operative society, even if there was no positive evidence of such entrustment of work, it was pointed out that the activities of running the canteen could hardly have been undertaken by the co-operative society unless it was entrusted to it by the mills. 16. Thus where there is a statutory liability on the part of establishment in discharging the statutory obligation and the services are availed from the contractor, the contract labour would indeed be the employee of the principal employer. 17. In the present case it cannot be doubted that the cheek posts were created under the statute by the competent authority to implement the provisions of Sales Tax Act and it was statutory obligation of the Commercial Taxes Department to create the check post to implement the statutory provisions to check the evasion and avoidance of tax in respect of goods arsing through such check posts. To man such posts is also, therefore, statutory obligation of the Department. If the Department has availed the services of a contractor for services of persons, such contract labour would indeed have to be treated as employee-of the department as a principal employee and not as employer of agency on aforesaid principle. 18. This conclusion in our opinion provides a complete answer to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no relationship of master and servant established between the department and security guards. This principle was applied in Suresh Chandra's case (supra) in addition to finding that there was no evidence of existence of real contract between the department and the agency for employment of LDCs. 19. This principle was applied in Suresh Chandra's case (supra) in addition to finding that there was no evidence of existence of real contract between the department and the agency for employment of LDCs. 19. In the present case even without going into the question of genuine ship of the agreement existing between the department and the agency, suffice it to say that the creation of posts was under the statute as a part of statutory obligation for setting up check posts to check evasion and avoidance of tax in respect of the goods passing through such check posts and to employ suitable person viz. security guards on such check posts, was also the obligation of the Department. 20. In view thereof the principle enunciated in Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd. case. (supra) as approved by Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. case (supra) and applied to by this Court in Suresh Chandra's case fully applicable in the facts of the present case, if that be so, then the termination order must be held to be invalid in view of the conclusions reached by the Court in Suresh Chandra's case and also in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Rashid Mohammed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 406/2000 decided on 25.4.2003. 21. In view thereof the termination orders in respect of the petitioners deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 22. Coming to the question of regularisation of their services, it is not in as dispute that in each case the petitioner has rendered services uninterruptedly for almost twelve years against available vacant post. That being so, prima facie their employment as security guards on duly created check posts by the competent authority must also be held as per the procedure provided for engagement of security guards as there is no prohibition of engaging the workmen through contract labour in the Commercial Taxes Department. Still the question of regularisation of services must be examined by the employer keeping in view the well known principles enunciated by the Supreme Court as discussed by this Court in Bhawani Singh's case supra. As the impugned provisions of the Act of 1999 have already been declared to be ultra vires that is no impediment in considering the cases of petitioner on such principles. As the impugned provisions of the Act of 1999 have already been declared to be ultra vires that is no impediment in considering the cases of petitioner on such principles. We, therefore, direct the respondents to consider the case of each of the petitioner for regularisation of his service in terms of the principle enunciated in the case of Bhawani Singh (Supra). 23. With the aforesaid direction, the petitioner are allowed. No orders as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******