JUDGMENT Rajesh Shankar, J. - At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects as pointed out by the office are ignored for the present. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to allow the members of the petitioner-Association to pay the monthly wages to their labourers as per long existing practice of payment through issuing the individual cheque. A further prayer has been made for quashing the circular 15. 11. 2017 issued by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure2 to the writ petition) contained in Memo No. PERS/W/CLC/20172175, whereby members of the petitioner-Association have been directed to make payment of wages to their workers/labourers by way of bank transfer through epayment mode i. e. , RTGS/NEFT and no payment of wages should be done through individual bank cheque. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Association submits that it is a registered Association and the members are the contractors engaged in execution of different types of civil, mechanical and electrical jobs under Bokaro Steel Plant. The members of the petitioner-Association have engaged several workers/labourers for execution of the job awarded to them and they use to make payment of wages to the said workers/labourers by way of issuing cheques. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Association further submits that the amended provision of Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 [as per the Payment of Wages (Amendment) Ordinance, 2016], the wages are to be paid in current coin or currency notes or by cheque or by crediting the wages in the bank account of the employees. Thus, the circular dated 15. 11. 2017 issued by the respondent no. 4 directing inter alia that no payment of wages to the contract workers will be made by individual cheque, rather the same should be made by way of bank transfer through epayment mode i. e. , RTGS/NEFT is completely arbitrary. The members of the petitioner-Association are not in a position to make payment of wages to the workers through electronic mode in such a short span of time. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the circular dated 15. 11. 2017 has been issued by the respondent no. 4 in pursuance of the direction of the Government of India under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the rules framed thereunder. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the circular dated 15. 11. 2017 has been issued by the respondent no. 4 in pursuance of the direction of the Government of India under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the rules framed thereunder. The Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) has communicated the direction of the Government of India to all the contractors through impugned circular dated 15. 11. 2017. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition. On perusal of the circular dated 15. 11. 2017, it appears that the respondent no. 4 has issued the said circular under the direction of the concerned authority of the Government of India, whereby it has been decided that all the contractors are required to make payment of wages to the workers/labourers for the month of November, 2017 (payable in the month of December, 2017) and onwards directly in the bank account of the workers/labourers through RTGS/NEFT/epayment mode and thereafter, to produce the evidence at the time of witnessing of muster rollcumwage sheet. The contractors have also been informed that the payment of wages to the contract workers would not be done by issuing individual bank cheque. The impugned circular dated 15. 11. 2017 issued by the respondent no. 4 appears to be a followup action taken pursuant to the direction of the Central Government out of a policy decision. The provisions of the Payment of Wages Act (Amendment) Ordinance relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Association is of the year, 2016, however, the direction of the Government of India referred in the circular dated 15. 11. 2017 appears to be subsequent to the publication of the said amendment ordinance. Moreover, the petitioner-Association has neither annexed any notification/circular of the Central Government nor has made the Union of India a partyrespondent in the present writ petition so as to make any interpretation of the same. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned circular dated 15. 11. 2017 issued by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure2 to the writ petition). 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.