H. G. RAMESH, J. ( 1 ) IN these two petitions the petitioners who are the Chairman and Managing Director of the Jyothi Gas Ltd. and branch Manager respectively have assailed the order of taking cognizance by the JMFC, in C. C. No. 1106/98 and 1107 of 1998, that the so called complaint has to be filed under S. 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. 1970, (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act), alleging violation of S. 12 (1) of the Act. ( 2 ) IN the inspection report submitted by the Senior Inspector of Labour Enforcement dept. said to be appointed under S. 28 of the Act said to have inspected the concern of the petitioners on 22-7-98 and found that the petitioners were executing the work of bottling of LPG through 24 contract labourers without obtaining any licence; one more complaint was filed alleging violation of the provisions of the Act and rules framed therein in not displaying the notice showing the wage period, place and time of disbursement, the rate of wages, hours of work and alleging violation of the rules framed under the said enactment and also alleging in spite of issuance of notice having failed to show cause, the complaint is filed seeking to prosecute the petitioners under Ss. 23 and 24 of the Act and thus invoking independently the penal provisions of Ss. 23 and 24. These two petitions have been filed praying to award the expenses incurred by the Department in conducting the prosecution and also seeking to take action against the petitioners. The same has been assailed in these two petitions independently. ( 3 ) IN Crl. P. 2306/00 the petitioners have challenged the complaint filed regarding the violation of the provisions of the rules framed under the said Act for not displaying the board and not complying with the regulations and in Crl. P. 2307/00 complaint is filed seeking to take action for having employed more than 25 labourers without obtaining the licence. ( 4 ) THE grounds urged by the petitioners are that the petitioners have not engaged any contract labourers in their factory as reflected in the inspection report and also the registration of the petitioners unit under the Act does not arise. ( 4 ) THE grounds urged by the petitioners are that the petitioners have not engaged any contract labourers in their factory as reflected in the inspection report and also the registration of the petitioners unit under the Act does not arise. As there is no prima facie case against them, the complaint has to be dismissed in limine and also submitted that the complaint has misinterpreted the provisions of S. 2 (1) of the Act and that the petitioners establishment is not contractor nor do the petitioners come within the purview of the said Act. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent authority. ( 6 ) THE point that arises for determination is whether the establishment of the petitioner concern falls within the definition of a "contractor" as provided under S. 2 of the Act, if so, is there any violation to prosecute the petitioners for the violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules therein. ( 7 ) AT the outset, it is the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that M/s. Jyothi Gas Ltd. is a registered company under the Companies Act. It has engaged 24 employees on permanent basis and they have maintained the muster roll and also payment of monetary benefits and that it cannot be termed as contractor of the Central Government so as to define it as a contractor employed labourer for the establishment. ( 8 ) AT this juncture, it is relevant to note the definition as provided under S. 2 (b) (c) of the Act which reads thus:"contractor", in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor. "s. 2 (b) defines who is a "contract labour" and S. 2 (c) defines a "contractor". ( 9 ) IN a catena of decisions, the word "contractor" has been defined with one who for a fixed price undertakes to procure the furnishing of goods in large quantities whether for the public or a company or an individual. "s. 2 (b) defines who is a "contract labour" and S. 2 (c) defines a "contractor". ( 9 ) IN a catena of decisions, the word "contractor" has been defined with one who for a fixed price undertakes to procure the furnishing of goods in large quantities whether for the public or a company or an individual. In a given situation, if a railway contractor undertakes work of railways by appointing skilled or unskilled labourers and discharge the work of the railways as per the terms and conditions of the contract, it may be termed as "contract" and "contract labourer" by the said "contractor" for the discharge of the work. ( 10 ) HERE is a case wherein the petitioner is said to be a licencee for the bottling of the lp gas and dealing with the same to serve the public at large having obtained licence from the Ministry of Health and Chemicals. ( 11 ) IT is the argument of the learned standing counsel appearing for the Central government that the work discharged by the petitioners is nothing but a contract and it has to be viewed in a broader perspective and that it had employed more than 20 persons in violation of the terms of the above act and also not complied with the regulations in not displaying wage board etc. ( 12 ) IT is the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the State Labour Department Agencies, viz. Labour Inspector and Labour officers are regularly visiting the said unit; the factories Inspectors and other inspectors also inspect the unit; it is purely a registered company and the service rendered by the petitioner is not contract work or appointment of the persons though engaged are 24 in number, are not contract labourers but permanent labourers of the said concern. ( 13 ) HE has produced the attendance register and also audited balance sheet for the year 1999-00 and for subsequent period to show the balance sheet and further it is noted that admittedly the petitioners who are said to be the Managing Director and the Plant Manager and it is a company registered under the Companies Act as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioners have employed contract labourers. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioners have employed contract labourers. ( 14 ) SECTION 2 (a) (i) reads thus : "appropriate Government" means, (I) in relation to an establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), is the Central Government, the central Government. "when the unit does not fall within the meaning of S. 2 (a) (i) of the Act, the complainant cannot exercise the jurisdiction over the petitioners unit. ( 15 ) FURTHER, it is the argument of the learned standing counsel that without obtaining licence the petitioners have engaged more than 20 persons in violation of the Act and Regulations. In this regard it is to be noted that unless primarily it establishes that the very persons who were working as contract labourers as defined under S. 2 (b), the question of the application of the Act does not come into picture. The premise on which his complaint is preceded is that the concern of this petitioner is a contractor engaged in LPG bottling. Accordingly, it is noted in para 3 of the complaint accused are the contractors but it is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are not the contractor engaged in LPG bottling, rather they are licence holders. That makes all the difference and it doe not attract the provisions of the Act impugned. Under the circumstances, the complaint filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer and also the Inspector appointed under the Act cannot maintain the complaint against these petitioners. Accordingly, the proceedings pending before the J. M. F. C. , Nelamangala, in C. C. Nos. 1106 and 1107/98 against the petitioners are quashed. Petitions allowed. --- *** --- .