( 1 ) PETITIONERS in all these petitions are challenging a notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, 'the Act'), abolishing contract labour in certain sections of the petitioners. ( 2 ) SINCE the facts and law are common in all these petitions, this common order is passed. ( 3 ) W. P. No. 3576 of 2002.-Petitioner-Kamataka Co-operative Milk producers Federation Limited, Bangalore is formed on the pattern of anand Co-operative Society (Amul) in the State of Gujarat. It works in three line systems i. e. , petitioner-Society as an apex body, District co-operative Milk Producers Union at District level and Primary Dairy co-operatives at village levels. Petitioner-Society and the district milk unions are administered independently having its own Board of directors and having separately registered under the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Milk producers supply milk at society level, both in the morning and in the evening shifts, and the society is managed by a Committee and the primary society staff. District Milk unions organise milk routes and by means of hired vehicles the milk is collected from village dairy co-operatives. It is the responsibility of the transport contractor to produce and deliver milk at chilling centres/dairies in a specified time. If the milk is not lifted or if there were to be delay in arrival of the truck, the contractor would be held for losses. Milk is procured on all 365 days, even if it is rainy day or hot summer. The milk received at the chilling centre in milk cans is unloaded, chilled, tested, empty cans are cleaned and are loaded into the trucks. Milk received at dairy is processed, packed and stored in cold storage. Then loaded into milk distribution trucks. There are several member contractors who are directly involved in distribution of milk. Responsibility of timely supply of milk to agents vests with the contractor including cash/cheque collection. Milk received normally last maximum 4 to 5 hours in split hours, both in the morning and in the evening. Milk producers are more in the unorganised sectors of the society. Milk business is a main occupation of agricultural labourers and unemployed, etc. Consumers expect quality milk at a reasonable rate. This naturally demands reasonableness in the price of milk and involves social obligation. Milk producers are more in the unorganised sectors of the society. Milk business is a main occupation of agricultural labourers and unemployed, etc. Consumers expect quality milk at a reasonable rate. This naturally demands reasonableness in the price of milk and involves social obligation. In between these two extreme situations, balance has to be struck keeping both interests of milk producers and consumers. Therefore cost effective efficient management system is required to be followed for the survival of the organisation as a whole. Creation of responsible and accountable centres in each activity was mainly responsible for success of this dairy project. Policy of the Government placing dairy sector under the de-licence list has pushed co-operative dairy industry to death trap. There exists cutthroat competition. Society is having its own cadre strength approved by the Registrar of co-operative Societies. There are permanent workmen. However, in regard to certain category of work, which is intermittent in nature and where there is no need to employ considerable number of whole time workmen, petitioner is engaging contract labourers through contractors. Similar contract system is being followed in other milk dairies including private dairies. Contract labourers are given all statutory benefits as provided under the Act. ( 4 ) KMF Employees' Federation and KMF Cattle Feed Plant Loading and Unloading Workers' Union (both unorganised) raised an industrial dispute demanding abolition and absorption of contract labourers. The government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial tribunal, Bangalore. Aggrieved by the order of reference, employees federation filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 25277 of 1994 and 14734 of 1996 in this Court. This Court passed an order in W. P. No. 25277 of 1994 directing the State Government to exercise its power under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour Act keeping in mind the parameters mentioned in Section 10 (2) of the said Act and to pass appropriate orders. Government of Karnataka in the light of this order, constituted an Advisory Committee and this Committee has constituted a sub-Committee to submit report under Section 10 of the Act. The committee was not represented by any employer or contractor engaged in the dairy industry. Petitioner submitted a detailed objections. The representatives of the Sub-Committee visited one or two establishments and not all the establishments and submitted its report. Petitioner submitted a detailed statement of objections. The committee was not represented by any employer or contractor engaged in the dairy industry. Petitioner submitted a detailed objections. The representatives of the Sub-Committee visited one or two establishments and not all the establishments and submitted its report. Petitioner submitted a detailed statement of objections. Thereafter, the government has chosen to pass the impugned order. This order is challenged by the petitioner. ( 5 ) W. P. No. 1327 of 2002.-This petition is filed by the Bangalore urban and Rural District Co-operative Milk Producers Society Union limited. They also refer to same or similar allegations made in the connected petition. Petitioner further says that it has employed 1147 permanent employees. Certain operations and processes are being carried in the petitioner's society and that take only a few hours in a day, for which permanent employees cannot be employed. Petitioner hires labourers and work force on contract basis. Petitioner further says that the State Government has failed to consider that the process, operation and the work that are sought to be abolished under the notification are being carried out in other establishments with the help of labourers employed on contract basis. Petitioner further says that the notification in question is bad in law. They have also raised same or similar grounds as made in the connected writ petition. ( 6 ) W. P. Nos. 3786, 3787, 3789, 5275, 5276, 5287, 5307, 7543, 17130 and 24239 of 2002 are filed by various Co-operative Milk Producers society Unions. Facts and grounds are either same or similar in all these cases filed by the Milk Union. Similar prayer is sought for in this petition also. ( 7 ) W. P. No. 424 of 2002 (L-RES ).-This petition is filed by two labour contractors supplying contract labourers to the Shimoga Milk union and Belgaum Milk Union. They are aggrieved by the present notification. They say that they supply labourers to respondents 4 and 5. The contractors are covered under EPF and ESI schemes. These contractor workmen are paid minimum wages in addition to ESI and PF benefits. They farther say that the Government has discriminated between KMF Milk Unions and various other establishments engaged in milk and dairy products. There is a clear case of discrimination and unequal treatment for the same kind of establishments by the governments. These contractor workmen are paid minimum wages in addition to ESI and PF benefits. They farther say that the Government has discriminated between KMF Milk Unions and various other establishments engaged in milk and dairy products. There is a clear case of discrimination and unequal treatment for the same kind of establishments by the governments. There are many institutions like M/s. Heritage, Attibele, m/s. Srikrishna Milk, Dharwad, M/s. Nilgiri Dairy Farm, Bangalore, etc. , where identical work prohibited by the impugned notification is being carried out by the contract labourers. They want the notification to be set aside by this Court. ( 8 ) W. P. Nos. 2212 and 2180 of 2002, W. P. Nos. 48467 and 48206 of 2001 are by various labour contractors. In these petitions similar prayer is made with similar grounds as in the other connected filed by the labour contractors. ( 9 ) THE contesting Federation has filed an affidavit for vacating interim orders. In the affidavit is stated that the impugned Government order was obtained after prolonged agitation and legal battle. In 1994, the respondent-Federation submitted a representation to the government for abolition of contract labour in KMF and all other affiliated Milk Unions. There was no response by the Government. A writ petition was filed in this Court. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to approach the Government in the matter. Contempt proceedings were filed. It is only thereafter, the Government came forward with a suggestion that the matter be referred to the tribunal for adjudication. In a subsequent writ petition in which order of reference was questioned, this Court has directed the Government to consider the question of abolition of contract labour under Section 10 of the Act. Thereafter number of representations were made to the government. The Contract Labour Advisory Board took up the matter for adjudication. The Board recommended the Government for abolition of contract labour. Accordingly the impugned order came to be passed, 10 years are over since the dispute was raised before the Government. Federation wants these petitions to be dismissed. ( 10 ) STATE Government filed an affidavit. In the affidavit, the State government has referred to the earlier proceedings. Thereafter it states that the matter was referred to the Karnataka State Contract Labour advisory Board. The Advisory Board constituted a Sub-Committee with due representations to employers, employees and contractors. Federation wants these petitions to be dismissed. ( 10 ) STATE Government filed an affidavit. In the affidavit, the State government has referred to the earlier proceedings. Thereafter it states that the matter was referred to the Karnataka State Contract Labour advisory Board. The Advisory Board constituted a Sub-Committee with due representations to employers, employees and contractors. The sub-Committee was constituted to examine the possibility of abolition of contract labour system. Sub-Committee afforded sufficient opportunity to the management and contractors in the State to file objections. After examining all aspects of the matter and after thoroughly elucidating the information and after examining the nature of work performed in the units, a report was submitted to the Board. The said State Advisory board considering the report of the Sub-Committee has sent its recommendations. Thereafter, the Government, keeping in view the parameters of Section 10 (2) of the Act, has passed the impugned order abolishing contract labour in certain categories of workers mentioned therein. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order. Government wants these petitions to be dismissed. ( 11 ) HEARD Sri Ramadas, learned Senior Counsel and Sri K. Ramachandran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. C. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the contesting Federation, respondent 2. Sri Puttegowda, High Court Government Advocate for the respondent. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner would take me through the records available on records to say that Board has constituted a Sub- committee and the constitution of the Sub-Committee is illegal and defective in character. It consists of no representation from dairy industry. In addition he would argue that the Sub-Committee is biased because of the participation of Trade Union Leaders and no favourable report can be expected of from them. Learned Counsel complains that the Government without abolishing contract labour in private industries, have chosen to abolish contract labour system in the petitioner establishments and that amounts to hostile discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He would further argue that the material facts and material details would show that the safeguards provided in the Section 10 (2) of the Act have been followed more in breach. He wants interference in the matter. ( 13 ) SRI M. C. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the Federation would argue that in terms of the direction of this Court, the Government has chosen to abolish contract labour. He wants interference in the matter. ( 13 ) SRI M. C. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the Federation would argue that in terms of the direction of this Court, the Government has chosen to abolish contract labour. Theory of bias on account of participation of Trade Union Leaders has absolutely no basis in the given circumstances. He would also say that the theory of discrimination is not available on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. He would support the order. ( 14 ) LEARNED Government Advocate would say that in terms of the orders of this Court, Government has chosen to abolish contract labour system after following the legal formalities in terms of the Act. ( 15 ) AFTER hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 16 ) THE first contention of discrimination requires to be noticed by this Court in the light of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Admitted facts would reveal that the employees have filed writ petitions in this Court seeking for a mandamus in the matter with regard to regularisation of service of contract labour. Writ petitions were heard by this Court, and after hearing, this Court has chosen to pass the following order:"in the light of what is stated above the appropriate authority to decide the question of abolition of the contract labour under section 10 of the Act is the appropriate Government. If that be so, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. I do so, I hold that the reference to the Tribunal to decide the question of abolition of contract labour is clearly illegal. In such circumstances there will be a direction to the State Government to exercise its power under section 10 (1) of the Act keeping in mind the parameters made mention in Section 10 (2) of the Act and pass appropriate orders". ( 17 ) IN the light of this order, Government has chosen to abolish contract labour in the light of the recommendations of the Board in terms of the material available on record. In the light of the order of this court, petitioner cannot complain any discrimination in the matter. Abolition has been done in the light of the order of this Court and that therefore, petitioner cannot plead discrimination in the matter of abolition of contract labour. This contention requires rejection. In the light of the order of this court, petitioner cannot complain any discrimination in the matter. Abolition has been done in the light of the order of this Court and that therefore, petitioner cannot plead discrimination in the matter of abolition of contract labour. This contention requires rejection. ( 18 ) THE second contention of the petitioners is that the sub-Committee constituted by the Board is biased against the petitioners. Argument of the petitioners is that the Sub-Committee was headed by the Chairman of the KSRTC Staff and Workers Federation, a trade union leader. The said trade union espouses the cause of dairy workers and that any report submitted by the Sub-Committee is to be lopsided and cannot be an impartial report. It is also argued before me that the Sub-Committee is biased against the petitioner. ( 19 ) PETITIONERS press into service a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G. N. Nayak v Goa University and Others, AIR 2002 SC 790 : (2002)2 SCC 712 : 2002 SCC (Land S) 350 the Apex Court has noticed theory of bias in paragraphs 33 and 34 reading as under:"33. Bias may be generally defined as partiality or preference. It is tine that any person or authority required to act in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter must act impartially. "if however 'bias' and 'partiality1 be defined to mean the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the Judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial and no one ever will. The human mind, even at infancy, is no blank piece of paper. We are born with predispositions and the processes of education, formal and informal, create attitudes which precede reasoning in particular instances and which, therefore, by definition, are prejudices". (Per Frank, J. , in Re: linahan, (1943)138 F 2nd 650, 652 ). 34. It is not every kind of bias which in law is taken to vitiate an act. It must be a prejudice which is not founded on reason, and actuated by self-interest - Whether pecuniary or personal. Because of this element of personal interest, bias is also seen as an extension of the principle of natural justice that no man should be a Judge in his own cause. Being a state of mind, a bias is sometimes impossible to determine. Because of this element of personal interest, bias is also seen as an extension of the principle of natural justice that no man should be a Judge in his own cause. Being a state of mind, a bias is sometimes impossible to determine. Therefore, the Courts have evolved the principle that it is sufficient for a litigant to successfully impugn an action by establishing a reasonable possibility of bias or proving circumstances from which the operation of influences affecting a fair assessment of the merits of the case can be inferred". ( 20 ) PETITIONERS also has rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court in ranjit Thakur v Union of India and Others, AIR 1987 SG 2386 : (1987)4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L and S) 1 in support of his submission with regard to bias. In para 7, the Apex Court has ruled as under:"as to the tests of the likelihood of bias what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. The proper approach for the Judge is not to look at his own mind and ask himself, however, honestly, "am I biased?"; but to look at the mind of the party before him. . . . Thus tested the conclusion becomes inescapable that, having regard to the antecedent events, the participation of respondent 4 in the courts-martial rendered the proceedings quorum non-judice". ( 21 ) THERE cannot be two opinions with regard to the principles evolved by the Supreme Court in terms of the aforementioned judgments. But this Court has to see as whether the present set of circumstances would warrant a finding on bias against the sub-Committee. ( 22 ) THE State Government in its wisdom constituted the Karnataka state Contract Labour Advisory Board. The admitted facts would show that the Board has constituted a Sub-Committee consisting of four members, namely - (1) Sri Ananthasubba Rao, representing KSRTC staff and Workers Federation; (2) Sri K. S. Jagannatha, representing the management of NGEF; (3) Sri D. Kempanna, representing Karnataka state Contractors Association; and (4) Sri T. Srinivas, Assistant Labour commissioner, Bangalore Division-1. The Sub-Committee has given a unanimous report in terms of the material facts. It is not a single-member committee. No acceptable reasons are shown to the effect that the report is biased as sought to be made out before me. The Sub-Committee has given a unanimous report in terms of the material facts. It is not a single-member committee. No acceptable reasons are shown to the effect that the report is biased as sought to be made out before me. In the light of the constitution of multi-representative Sub-Committee and in the absence of any acceptable material on facts with regard to bias, bias argument is rejected by this Court. ( 23 ) PETITIONERS also complain that the Advisory Board did not have any member representing dairy industry, and that therefore, according to the petitioner, abolition based on the Advisory Board's recommendations is legally unsustainable. This argument at the outset is attractive. But, on a careful consideration of the material on record, it would show that the said argument is not available to the petitioners in the case on hand. The Act provides for representation of employers, employees and that of the State Government. In the case on hand, the board consists representation from employers' side, and also a representation from Union side. M/s. Kirloskar Electrical Company limited, Bangalore and M/s. Widia India Limited, Bangalore were there as Members of the Advisory Board. In the light of these two membership representing the employers' side, it cannot be said that the constitution of the Advisory Board is unsustainable as sought to be made out before me. All that the Act would say in terms of Section 4 thereof that there should be representation of 'industry'. That representation need not be from 'dairy industry" itself. This issue has been considered in somewhat same or similar circumstances in Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation and Another v Tiffin's Barytes Asbestos and Paints Limited and Another1. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court in paragraph 3 has ruled reading as under:"it is not necessary that the person appointed on the committee to represent the employers in a scheduled employment should be engaged for profit in the particular employment. It is enough if a nexus exists between the person so appointed to represent the employers in the particular employment and the particular employment concerned. It is enough if such members are intimately connected and if they are aware of the particular scheduled employment". It is enough if a nexus exists between the person so appointed to represent the employers in the particular employment and the particular employment concerned. It is enough if such members are intimately connected and if they are aware of the particular scheduled employment". ( 24 ) IN the light of the above judgment of the Apex Court and in the light of the representation from the industry, I deem it proper to reject the contention of defective Board in terms of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. ( 25 ) INSOFAR as merits of the matter is concerned, let me see as to whether the Government has committed any statutory violation in terms of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) act, 1970. Section 10 (2) of the Act reads as under:" (2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors, such as.- (a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment; (b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in that establishment; (c) whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto; air 1985 SC 1391 : (1985)3 SCC 594 : 1985-17-LLJ-412 (SC): 1985 SCC (L and S) 902 (d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen. Explanation.-If a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final". ( 26 ) COURTS have considered the scope of Section 10 (2) of the Act in various judgments. In Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v National Union water Front Workers and Others1, the Apex Court in paragraph 52 has ruled reading as under:"52. . . . . ( 26 ) COURTS have considered the scope of Section 10 (2) of the Act in various judgments. In Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v National Union water Front Workers and Others1, the Apex Court in paragraph 52 has ruled reading as under:"52. . . . . A glance through the said notification, makes it manifest that with effect from March 1, 1977, it prohibits employment of contract labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government. This clearly indicates that the Central government had not adverted to any of the essentials referred to above, except the requirement of consultation with the Central authority Board. Consideration of the factors mentioned above has to be in respect of each establishment, whether individually or collectively, in respect of which notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10 is proposed to be issued. The impugned notification apart from being an omnibus notification does not reveal compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 10. This is ex facie contrary to the postulates of Section 10 of the Act. Besides it also exhibits non-application of mind by the Central Government. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the said impugned notification dated December 9, 1976 issued by the Central Government". In Vegoils Private Limited v The Workmen , the Supreme Court has ruled in paragraphs 26 and 31 reading as under:"26. From the principles laid down by this Court and referred to above, it is clear that if the work for which contract labour is employed is incidental to and closely connected with the main activity of the industry and is of a perennial and permanent nature, the abolition of contract labour would be justified. It is also open to the Industrial Tribunal to have regard to the practice obtaining in other industries in or about the same area. It may be pointed out that most of the principles laid down by this Court have been given due regard in the Central Act, to which we will refer immediately. In our opinion, Mr. Pai is justified in his contention that the principles laid down by this Court, though adverted to by the Tribunal, have not been given due regard, when it gave a direction regarding abolition of contract labour 1. In our opinion, Mr. Pai is justified in his contention that the principles laid down by this Court, though adverted to by the Tribunal, have not been given due regard, when it gave a direction regarding abolition of contract labour 1. AIR 2001 SC 3527 : (2001)7 SCC 1 : 2001 SCC (L and S) 1121 : 2001-II-LLJ-1087 (SC) 2. AIR 1972 SC 1942 : 1971-II-LLJ-567 (SC): 1972 Lab. I. C. 760 (SC) : (1971)2 SCC 724 regarding loading and unloading. We will be discussing this aspect a little more elaborately when we deal with the third contention of mr. Pai on merits. 31. The following points emerge from Section 10 (1): (1) The appropriate Government has power to prohibit the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment; (2) Before issuing a notification prohibiting contract labour, the appropriate Government has to consult the Central or State Board, as the case may be, which we have already pointed out, comprises of the representatives of the workmen, contractor and the industry; (3) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1), prohibiting the employment of contract labour, the appropriate Government is bound to have regard not only to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in a particular establishment, but also other relevant factors enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (2); and (4) Under the Explanation which really relates to clause (b), the decision of the appropriate Government, on the question whether any process, operation or other work is of perennial nature, shall be final". This Court in Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Karnataka operations, Doddaballapur v State of Karnataka and Another ,2003-III-LLJ-760 (Kar.)HAS ruled in paragraph 15 reading as under:"15. The position is no better when the recommendation of the advisory Board was received by the Government. The government did not consider the matter with reference to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment of petitioner. Nor did it consider the matter with reference to any relevant factors including those enumerated in Section 10 (2) of the Act. On the other hand, a note was put up merely referring to the recommendation of the Advisory Board and proposing that a draft notification be issued, calling for objections. Nor did it consider the matter with reference to any relevant factors including those enumerated in Section 10 (2) of the Act. On the other hand, a note was put up merely referring to the recommendation of the Advisory Board and proposing that a draft notification be issued, calling for objections. But, strangely, neither a draft notification was issued nor opportunity was given to the employer or contractor or workmen to file their objections. . . . ". This Court in the said judgment has further observed that the words 'shall have regard to' in Section 10 (2) of the Act could not be taken as to mean "having regard to' or as not being mandatory. ( 27 ) FROM these judgments, what is clear to this Court is that the government is bound to follow the requirement of Section 10 (2) while deciding prohibition of contract labour. ( 28 ) LET me see as to whether facts of this case would satisfy the compliance of Section 10 (2) of the Act. It is seen that the abolition is in respect of 7 sections in Dairies and 4 sections in Cattle Feed Plants. After several visits, the Sub-Committee has chosen to submit a report thereby recommending prohibition by way of clustering certain departments. The Committee however has chosen to abolish only with regard to certain sections. It is seen from the material on record that the dairy industry stands on somewhat different circumstances when compared to other industries. In fact, petitioners have chosen to explain as to how loading and unloading takes place in dairy industries. It is stated that the union has organised milk routes and through hired vehicles the milk is collected from village Dairy Co-operative Societies. It is the responsibility of the contractor to procure and deliver milk at chilling centres in a specified time. If the milk is not lifted or if there is any delay in the arrival of trucks, the contractor will be held for losses. The milk is procured whether it is rainy day or hot summer, and the milk received at the chilling centres through milk cans is unloaded, chilled and tested, and the empty cans are cleaned and are loaded on to the trucks. It is further stated that the milk received at dairy is processed, packed and stored in cold storage and then loaded to milk distribution trucks. It is further stated that the milk received at dairy is processed, packed and stored in cold storage and then loaded to milk distribution trucks. They say that contract workers are engaged in the job of loading and unloading of milk cans, dumping of cans, etc. Unfortumately, the Committee while recommending abolition of contract labour with regard to unloading of milk and feeding of raw milk into milk processing plant within the factory premises, etc. , has not chosen to consider the test in terms of Section 10 (2) of the Act, except saying that they can be clustered and they have not gone into details with regard to requirement of Section 10 (2) notwithstanding the objections made by the petitioners. In fact, they say that it is not necessary to traverse all the submissions made by the dairy management since they are not germane to decide the issue under Section 10 (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Act. This approach, in the light of various judgments as referred to above, is unacceptable in law. The Committee has not considered the material on record properly insofar as unloading, processing, packing, cleaning, etc. , are concerned. The only answer by the Committee is that they can be clustered and that has been blindly accepted by the Board and the government: Insofar as cleaning work is concerned, under some circumstances it may be perennial in nature and in some other circumstances it may not be so. Work area is also not explained. It is vague. It all depends upon the facts of each case. There are no acceptable reasons forthcoming with regard to cleaning process is concerned. I am therefore of the view that this also requires reconsideration. Therefore, according to me, decision suffers for want of consideration of the material in terms of provisions of the Act and the , decision making process is wrong in the matter of abolition in the case on hand. In the absence of any material available on record, any decision taken by the decision maker, is a decision without substance. Non-consideration of the material in terms of Section 10 (2), in my opinion, affects the case on hand. In the absence of any material available on record, any decision taken by the decision maker, is a decision without substance. Non-consideration of the material in terms of Section 10 (2), in my opinion, affects the case on hand. The Committee has chosen to abolish contract labour in the following sections:"dairies: (1) Unloading of milk and feeding of raw milk into the milk processing plant within the factory premises; (2) Milk and milk products processing; (3) Packing of milk and milk products and dispatching these products for retailing; (4) Cleaning of work areas; (5) Maintenance of plant and machinery; (6) Laboratory and testing; (7) Accounts and office work. Cattle Feed Plants: (1) Running the plant and boiler house; (2) Maintenance of plant and machinery; (3) Laboratory and testing; (4) Accounts and office work". ( 29 ) IN the light of the arguments and in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, I am satisfied that the contract labour notification insofar as items 1 to 4 (in respect of in dairy industries) are concerned, requires reconsideration. Insofar as Cattle Feed Plants are concerned, contract labour system has to be abolished in the areas of: (1) Running the plant and boiler house; (2) Maintenance of plant and machinery; (3) Laboratory and testing; and (4) Accounts and office work. Working in these departments is perennial in nature. Therefore, contract labour is not permissible in terms of the Act. ( 30 ) IN the circumstances, I am view that the abolition of contract only insofar as: (1) Unloading of milk and feeding of raw milk into the milk processing plant within the factory premises; (2) Milk and milk products processing; (3) Packing of milk and milk products and dispatching these products for retailing; and (4) Cleaning of the work areas, in dairy industries is concerned, require my interference in these petitions. ( 31 ) IN the result, these writ petitions are partly allowed. Notification No. Kae 202 Kabase 95, dated 11-12-2001 under challenge insofar as items 1 to 4 insofar as dairy industries are concerned is set aside. However, State Government is directed to examine the matter afresh in the light of the Steel Authority of India limited's case, if they so desire, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .