http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS’ UNION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/03/1985

BENCH: KHALID, V. (J) BENCH: KHALID, V. (J) DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1985 AIR  488            1985 SCR  (3) 150  1985 SCC  (2) 294        1985 SCALE  (1)383

ACT:        Contract  Labour Regulation  and Abolition) Act, 1970 Section 2 (1) (a) read with sections 2 (1) (e) 1(4) (a), (b) and Proviso  and 1(5)  (a) and (b) and the Explanation-Terms ’appropriate Government’,  clarified-Appropriate  Government for the  purposes of taking necessary steps under the Act of 1970 to  redress the  grievances  of  the  contract  labours working with  the Food  Corporation of India’s establishment situated in  the States  is the  respective State Government under sub-section  2 of  section 2  (a) and  not the Central Government-Canon of  statutory construction  explained-  Any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government" which  is in pari materia with Section 2 (a) (l) of the  Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947, meaning of-Nature of relief that can be qranted, outlined

HEADNOTE:        The Food Corporation of India has been entrusted with the duty  of  procuring  foodgrains  and  its  movement  and distribution throughout the country. The Corporation employs for the discharge of this work three types of labourers; (1) departmentalised labour  who are  its regular employees; (2) direct paid labour; and (3) Contract labour who are employed by the  Corporation through the intermediary of contractors. The petitioners  who come under the third category have been trying  to   pursuade  the   corporation   for   progressive departmentalisation of  its labour  Or  in  the  alternative extending to  them  the  benefits  of  the  Contract  Labour (Regulation and  Abolition) Act  1970. By this writ petition they prayed  for a  writ of  mandamus either  to  the  Union Government or  to the concerned State Governments, to extend to them  the benefits  of the  Act, for  a direction  to the corporation to  pay them  the same  wages as are paid to the departmentalised labour  and other  reliefs. The Corporation pleaded that  the appropriate  Government for the purpose of the claims  of the  petitioners working in its establishment in a  State a  is the concerned State Government and not the Central Government,  which stand  was adopted  by  ihe  15th Respondent State  of Madhya  Pradesh and the 21st Respondent State of  Punjab through  their  respective  affidavits  and therefore disowned  its responsibility. The other States did not file their counter at all.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

    Allowing the petition, the Court, 151 ^        HELD: 1 Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)  Act, 1970 enables the appropriate Government by a  suitable notification  after making  a  study  of  the conditions laid  down  therein  to  prohibit  employment  of contract labour  in any  ’process, operation, or other work’ in  any   establishment.  The  petitioners,  complaint  that despite several disputes and representations made to all the State Governments as well as the Union of India, nothing has so fare  been done  to give the benefit of Section 10 to the contract labour in the Corporation by playing hide and seek, one pointing  to the other as the appropriate Government for redressal of their grievances is justified. [155D - E]        2.1  On the  interpretation of  the relevant sections namely, I  (4), 1  (5), 2  (1) (a)  and 2  (a)  (e)  of  the Contract Labour Act, 1970 read with section 2 (a) (1) of the Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947  "appropriate Government" for the purpose  of this case pertaining to the regional offices and warehouses  of the  Food Corporation  of  India  in  the respective States  is  the  State  Government  and  not  the Central Government. [161D]       2.2 Section 1(4) deals with the application of the Act to  establishments   and  contractors   answering   to   the description given therein and certainly the establishment of the Food  Corporation and  the contractors  it employs  come within the ambit of the provisions of this Act. [156F]      2.3 Various warehouses, godowns and places alike sot up by the  Corporation would  be establishments where the trade of the  corporation is  being  carried  on  and  within  the meaning of  the term  "establishment" in  section 2  (1) (e) (ii) of the Act. [158EI        2.4  It is  a  well-established  canon  of  statutory construction that  legislature is  known to  avoid tautology and redundancy. If Food Corporation of India was an industry carried  on  by  or  under  the  authority  of  the  Central Government, it  would have  been comprehended  in the  first part of  sub-section (1)  of Section  2  of  the  Industrial Disputes Act,  but that  being  not  the  position,  it  was specifically referred  to by  name. However,  the expression ’appropriate Government’  in the  Contract Labour  Act, 1970 does not  include by  name the  Food Corporation of India as the one in respect of which the appropriate Government would be the  Central Government,  while it is mentioned so in the definition in  the Industrial  Disputes Act even though both the  statutes  use  the  general  expression  ’any  industry carried  on  by  or  under  the  authority  of  the  Central Government.’ [169C - E]        2.5 Looking to the placement of the expression in the definition clause of the Contract Labour Act and the purpose for which  it  is  enacted,  the  expression  ’any  industry carried  on  by  or  under  the  authority  of  the  Central Government’ mean  ’pursuant to  the authority, such as where an agent  or  a  servant  acts  under  or  pursuant  to  the authority of  his principal  or master  ’ Since  the various establishments of the Corporation do not pertain to any 152 controlled industry,  sub-clause (1)  of sub-section  (1) of section 2 (a) of the Act is not attracted and therefore, the case would  be governed  by the  residuary provision in sub- section  (2)   and  the   State  Government   would  be  the appropriate Government.  Further in  the  counter  affidavit filed by  ‘the Corporation  it is  stated that this question was examined by the Labour Ministry which had clarified that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

the  respective   State  Governments  are  the  ’appropriate Governments’ for  the corporation’s  establishments situated in the  State. The  Union   of India  has correctly  taken a similar stand  and the  States of  Punjab and Madhya Pradesh have also affirmed it. [160B; F;G; 161A-B]        Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. The State of Bihar and Ors.,  11969] 3  SCR 995; Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur v.  The Model  Mills, Nagpur  and Anr.,  AIR 1984  SC 1813, applied.        3  In the  instant case,  it will  not be possible or proper for  the Court  to grant  the reliefs  prayed by  the petitioner in full on the materials on record, the materials being  scanty   and   insufficient   for   a   comprehensive adjudication of  the claims  of  the  petitioners.  The  Act contains provisions  enabling the  appropriate Government to get reports  as to  how to  implement the  provisions of the Act. The  machinery provided  for by  the Act  has not  been brought into  action in any State except the State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore  the course open lo the Court is to issue appropriate direction to the State Governments except Madhya Pradesh State  to constitute committees within three months, under section  5 of the Act to make necessary enquiries, and to submit a report within four months of its constitution as to whether  it would  be possible to abolish contract labour in the Corporation altogether. [161 F-G]

JUDGMENT:    ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 13508 of 1983        (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)      C. S. Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner.        Krishan  Dayal, N.C. Talukdar, R.N. Poddar, Y P. Rao, A.K Sanghi and R. K. Mehta for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by        KHALID,  J. This  is representative action brought on behalf of  the Contract  ’Labourers, working  with the  Food Corporation of  India, the  first  respondent  in  the  writ petition, distressed  by the  unhelpful attitude of both the Central and  the State  Government in  not redressing  their grievances for  either  departmentalising  them  or  in  the alternative extending  to them  the benefit  of the Contract Labour (Regulation  and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ’The Act’). 153 The petitioners  complaint is that the Central and the State Governments play hide and seek, one pointing to the other as the appropriate  Government under  the provisions of the Act and thus denying to them what is their dues.        2.  The first  respondent is  the Food Corporation of India (herein  after called  ’The Corporation’);  the second respondent: Union  of India,  the  third  respondent:  Chief Labour Commissioner  (Central)  and  respondents  4  to  22, various  State   Governments.  The   Corporation  has   been entrusted  by   the  second  respondent  with  the  duty  of procuring food  grains and  its  movement  and  distribution throughout the  country. The  corporation  employs  for  the discharge  of  this  work  three  types  of  labourers:  (1) departmentalised labour  who are  its regular employees; (2) direct paid labour; and (3) contract labour who are employed by the  Corporation through the intermediery of contractors. The petitioners have been trying to pursuade the Corporation for progressive  departmantalisation of  its  labour.  They, however, did  not succeed.  Their grievance is that even the limited benefits  available to  them under the provisions of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

the Act  have not  been  extended  to  them.  By  this  writ petition they  pray, for  a writ  of mandamus  either to the Union Government  or to  the State Governments, to extend to them the  benefits of  the  Act,  for  a  direction  to  the Corporation to  pay them  the same  wages as are paid to the departmentalised labour and for other reliefs.      3. In a detailed counter-affidavit, the Corporation has pleaded that  the appropriate  Government for the propose of the claims  of the  petitioners is  the State Government and not the  Central Government,  and that it is not practicable for the Corporation to employ the labour whom the petitioner represent as  departmental labour  since the  nature of  the operations are  seasonal, sporadic and varied from region to region, that  the work  of  the  Corporation  fluctuates  in volume at different places and at different points depending upon the  procurement, movement and off take of food grains. It is  farther stated  that it  is not easy for abolition of Contract labour employed by the Corporation since other like organisations connected  with the  Government of  India also empley contract  labourers and  hence abolition  af contract labour cannot be consideder in isolation for the Corporation alone. Among  the State  Governments:, the  15th  respondent (the State  of Madhya  Pradesh) and the 21st respondent (the State  of  Punjab)  have  filed  their  respective  counter- affidavits. 154        4.  In its  counter -  affidavits the State of Madhya Pradesh has  stated that  the said  Government  have  framed rules under the Act (which came into force on 10.2 1971) for implementation of  its provisions,  that the  Act  is  being implemented in  its entirety  in the said State, that it has constituted an  independent State  Advisory Contract  Labour Board which  was  advising  the  State  Government  on  such matters as  are referred to it, that it has also constituted a committee  on 31st  March 1981  in exercise  of the powers conferred on  it under Section 5 of the Act, and that in the case of  22 branches,  prosecutions were  launched for  non- compliance with the provisions of the Act        5  In the  Counter -  affidavit filed  on  behalf  of respondent No.  21, (the  State of Punjab) it is stated that the appropriate  Government for  the purpose  of the Act for the regional  office of the Corporation in the Punjab State, is the State Government.      6. Before considering the claims of the petitioners, we will have a look at some of the provisions of the Act, which if properly  implemented would  have,  in  some  measure  at least, satisfied  the labour. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows:                " 10.  Prohibition of  employment af contract labour-           (1) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  this      Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation      with the  Central Board or, as the case may be, a State      Board,  prohibit,   by  notification  in  the  Official      Gazette, employment  of contract  labour in any process      operation or other work in any establishment.           (2) Before  issuing any  notification  under  sub-      section  (l)  in  relation  to  an  establishment,  the      appropriate  Government   shall  have   regard  to  the      conditions of  work and  a 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

    carried on in the establishment; 155                (b) whether  it is  of perennial nature, that      is to  say, it  is so  of  sufficient  duration  having      regard to  the nature  of  industry,  trade,  business,      manufacture  or   occupation   carried   on   in   that      establishment;                (c) whether  it is  done  ordinarily  through      regular   workmen   in   that   establishment   or   an      establishment similar thereto;                (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.’        This  section enables the appropriate Government by a suitable notification after making a study of the conditions laid down  therein 1)  to prohibit  employment  of  contract labour in  any ’process,  operation or  other work’  in  any establishment. The  petitioners grievance  is  that  despite several disputes  and representations  made to all the State Governments as  well as  the Union  of India, nothing has so far been  done to  give the  benefit of  Section  10  to  be contract labour  in the  Corporation. This complaint appears to be justified.        7. We will now examine the relevant provisions of the Act  to   find  out  as  to  which  are  the  industries  or establishments to  which the  Act applies  and which  is the appropriate Government  in its  contemplation,  on  whom  is entrusted the  duty to  ameliorate the conditions of labour. We read  Section 1(4)  (a), (b) and Proviso and Section 1(5) (a) and (b) and the Explanation:      "1(4) It applies:      (a)  to every  establishment in  which twenty  or  more           workmen are  employed or  were employed on any day           of the preceding twelve months contract labour;      (b)  to every  contractor who  employs or who employ ed           on any  day of  the preceding twelve months twenty           or more workmen; 156        Provided  that the  appropriate Government may. after giving not  less than two months’ notice of its intention so to do,  by notification  in the  Official Gazette, apply the provisions of  this Act  to any  establishment or contractor employing such  number of workmen less than twenty as may be specified in the notification.        (5)(a)  It shall not apply to establishments in which work only of an intermittent or casual nature is performed.        (b) If a question arises whether work performed in an establishment is  of an  intermittent or  casual nature, the appropriate Government  shall  decide  that  question  after consultation with  the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, and its decision shall be final.       Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-section, work per formed  in an establishment shall not be deemed to be of an intermittant nature.      (i)  if it  was performed for more than one hundred and           twenty days in the preceding twelve months, or      (ii) if it  is of a seasonal character and is performed           for more than sixty days in a year."        Section 1(4) deals with the application of the Act to establishments and  contractors answering to the description given therein.  It was  not  disputed  before  us  that  the establishment in  question and  the contractors  it  employs

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

come within  the  ambit  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act. However, an  investigation is  necessary to  collect factual details to  ascertain whether  the Corporation  comes within the exemption indicated in clause 1(5) quoted above.        8.    Section 3 speaks of a Central Advisory Board to advise  the  Central Government  on  matters  arising  out  of  the administration of  the Act and Section 4 speaks similarly of State Advisory  Boards. Section  5 confers  on  the  Central Board or  the State  Boards as  the case may be the power to constitute committees  for the  proper implementation of the provisions of  the Act.  Section 7  requires registration of establishments  to   which  the   Act   applies.   On   such registration, the  principal employer will get a certificate of 157 registration containing  the necessary  particulars. Chapter IV deals  with the  licence of  a contractor  and Chapter V. with the  welfare and health of the contract labour. Chapter VI deals with penalties and procedure.       9.    The petitioners case is that though the Act came into force  on 10-2-1971 no contractor has complied with the provisions of  the Act  and each of them has by infringement of the  provisions of  the Act rendered themselves liable to be prosecuted. Since the contractors have not got themselves licenced, the  labourers find  it difficult  to  invoke  the relevant provisions  of the  Rules to secure the benefits to them under the Act.        10.   Now the question as to which is the appropriate Government for  the implementation  of the provisions of the provisions of  the Act  can be considered.A decision on this question is  necessary before any direction can be issued in this writ  petition. The  State Governments, except those of State of  Madhya Pradesh  and Punjab,  have not  filed their counter affidavits.  In the  writ petition  the  petitioners have indicated  that the  Central and  the State Governments have taken up conflicting stand on this question.        11.    ’Appropriate Government’ is defined in Section 2(1) (a) of the Act to read as under:      "2(1) (a) "Appropriate Government means,:      (1) in relation to-           (1)  any establishment  pertaining to any industry                carried on  by or  under the authority of the                Central Government, or pertaining to any such                controlled industry  as may  be specified  in                this behalf by the Central Government, or           (ii) any establishment  of any  railway Cantonment                Board, major port, mine or oil field, or             (iii)any establishment of a banking or insurance                company,      (2) the Central Government, 158                in relation  to any  other establishment  the                Government of  the State  in which that other                establishment is situated."        A bare reading will show that sub-cls. (ii) and (iii) of sec.  2(1) (a)  are  not  attracted  in  this  case.  The question then  is  whether  various  establishments  of  the Corporation spread  all over the country could be said to be establishments pertaining  to any  industry carried on by or under the  authority of the Central Government or pertaining to any  such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by  the Central  Government. Before  we determine the width and ambit of sub-cl. (i) of sub-sec. (I) of sec. 2 (1) (a), it  would be advantageous to refer to the definition of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

’establishment’ set out in sec. 2 (I)(e). It reads as under:      "2(1) (e)- Establishment means-           (i)  any office or department of the Government or                a local authority, or           (ii) any place wher e any  industry, trade,  business, manufacture or occupation                is carried on.       " We would be concerned with sub-cl (ii) of Sec. 2 (1) (e) which  provides  that  the  establishment  would  be  an establishment   where   any   industry,   trade,   business, manufacture  or  occupation  is  carried  on.  Thus  various warehouses,  godowns   and  place   alike  set   up  by  the Corporation would  be establishments  where the trade of the Corporation is  being carried on. Could these establishments be said  to be  pertaining to  an industry  carried on by or under the  authority of  the Central  Government ? Before we find out  correct meaning  of the  expression ’any  industry carried  on  by  or  under  the  authority  of  the  Central Government’, it  is  necessary  to  draw  attention  to  the definition of  appropriate Government’ as set out in Section 2(a)  (1)  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947,  which provides  that   ’appropriate  Government’   means:  (i)  in relation to  any industrial  dispute concerning any industry carried on  by or  under the authority of Central Government (omitting the  words not  necessary for the present purpose. Or in  relation to an industrial dispute concerning the Food Corporation Or India established under section 3. Or a Board of Management established for two or more 159 contiguous States  under Section  16 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. .., the Central Government. Obviously, therefore, for  the  purpose  of  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947,  in relation to  any  industrial  dispute  concerning  the  Food Corporation  of   India,  the   Central  Government  is  the appropriate Government, There is an express reference to the Food Corporation  of India. If the Food Corporation of India was an  establishment in  an industry carried on by or under the  authority  of  the  Central  Government,  it  would  be tautologous to specifically refer it and include it. It is a well  established   canon  of  statutory  construction  that legislature is  known to  avoid tautology and redundancy. If Food Corporation  of India  was an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, it would have been comprehended  in the  first part of sub-section (1) but that being not the position, it was specifically referred to by name. Having examined this definition, it is necessary to bring to  fore the contra-distinction between the definition of the expression ’appropriate Government’ in the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947 and  the definition  in  the  Act  under examination. It  may be  pointed out  that the expression in the Act  does not  include by  name the  Food Corporation of India as  the  one  in  respect  of  which  the  appropriate Government would  be the  Central Government,  while  it  is mentioned so  in the  definition in  the Industrial Disputes Act even though both the statutes use the general expression ’any industry  carried on  by or  under the authority of the Central Government.        12.    Having noticed this contra-distinction, let us examine  the  width  and  content  of  the  expression  ’any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government’. The  matter is  no more  resintegra.  In  Heavy Engineering Mazdoor  Union v. The State of Bihar and Ors.(1) this Court held that the expression ’any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government’ as used in the  definition of expression ’appropriate Government’ in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Section 2(a) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would mean ’pursuant to the authority, such as where an agent or a servant acts  under or  pursuant to  the  authority  of  his principal or  master.’ This  Court took  notice of  the fact that the  entire share  capital  of  the  Heavy  Engineering Corporation Ltd,  was contributed  by the Central Government and extensive powers were conferred on it and  (1) [1969]- 3 SCR 995 160 yet the  Corporation was none other than a company and could not be  said to  be an  industry carried  on by or under the authority of  the Central  Government. Therefore,  the  case would be covered by the residuary clause and the appropriate Government was  held to  be the  State  Government  and  the reference under  Section 10  made by  the State of Bihar was held valid  and competent.  Looking to  the placement of the expression in  the definition  clause of  the  Act  and  the purpose  for  which  it  is  enacted,  the  expression  ’any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government’ must receive the same interpretation as was done in the  aforementioned case.  In a  recent decision  of this Court in  Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur v. The Model Mills, Nagpur and Anr.,(l) to which both of us were parties, while interpreting  more or  less  an  identical  expression occurring in  Section 32(IV)  of the  Bonus Act,  1965, this Court held  that in  relation to  an undertaking  in textile industry in  respect of  which an  authorised controller was appointed   under   the   provisions   of   the   Industrial (Development and  Regulation)  Act,  1951,  the  appropriate Government was  the State  Government and  not  the  Central Government  observing   that  even   where   an   authorised controller is appointed by the Central Government. it merely substitutes Board  of Director  of a  company  managing  the industrial undertaking by an authorised controller appointed by the Central Government, but the undertaking none-the-less remains an under  taking managed under the provisions of the Companies Act,  1956, and  it could  not be  said to  be  an undertaking in  any industry  carried on  by  or  under  the authority of the Central Government. The same approach holds good for  the purpose of construction of the expression ’any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government’ under  the Act. Let it be made clear that it was not  suggested   that  the  various  establishments  of  the Corporation pertain  to any controlled industry. ’therefore, sub-clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2(a) of the Act is not  attracted and  therefore, the case would be governed by the  residuary provision in sub-section (2) and the State Government would be the appropriate  Government.        13.     The question  as to which is the ’appropriate Government has  been briefly  dealt  with  in  the  counter- affidavits filed by the Corporation, State of Madhya Pradesh and the  State of  Punjab. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Corporation, it is stated that this (1) AIR 1984 SC 1813 161 question was  examined by  the Labour  Ministry and that the said  Ministry  had  clarified  that  the  respective  State Governments  are   the  ’appropriate  Governments’  for  the Corporation’s establishments  situated in  the  States.  The Union of  India, the  second  respondent,  in  its  counter- affidavit has  also taken  the stand  that the  ’appropriate Government’ for  the purpose  of  the  Zonal  establishments situated in  the respective  States is  the State Government and not the Central Government.        The  State of  Punjab and the State of Madhya Pradesh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

have also stated in their respective counter-affidavits that the ’appropriate  Government’ for the purpose of the Act for the regional  offices of the Corporation in their respective States  is   the  State   Government.  These  pleadings  are indicative of the fact that the State Governments understood them to  be  the  ’appropriate  Government’  for  the  Zonal offices in their respective State.         On  the  interpretation  of  the  relevant  Sections extracted above,  we hold  that the ’appropriate Government’ for the  purpose of  this case  pertaining to  the  regional offices and  the warehouses  in the respective States is the State Government and not the Central Government.      14.   However, we are of the opinion that it may not be possible or proper for us to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner  in full  on the  materials  on  record.  The materials are  scanty and  insufficient for  a comprehensive adjudication of  the claims  of the petitioners and to grant them reliefs  as prayed  for. The  Act  contains  provisions enabling the  ’appropriate Government’  to get reports as to how to  implement the  provisions of  the Act. The machinery provided for  by the Act has not been brought into action in any State  except the  State of  Madhya Pradesh. Under these circumstances. the  only course  open  to  us  is  to  issue appropriate direction to the State Governments to constitute committees under  Section 5  of the  Act, to  make necessary enquiries, and  to submit a report as to whether it would be possible to  abolish  contract  labour  in  the  Corporation altogether In so doing, we will have to exclude the State of Madhya Pradesh  because the  counter-affidavit filed by that State shows  that necessary  action is being taken under the Act. Accordingly  a writ  of mandamus  will be issued to all the State Governments except the State of Madhya Pradesh for appointing a  committee under  Section 5  of the  Act within three months from 162 today to  enquire whether contract labour in the Corporation should be  abolished. The  committee shall  submit a  report within four months of its constitution and the Government is directed to  take action  on such  report within  two months thereafter. The  necessary expenses  for the committees will be borne  by  the  Corporation.  Since  the  Madhya  Pradesh Government has  already constituted committees under Section 5, the  said State  is directed  to ask  the  committees  so appointed to  make its  report  expeditiously  and  to  take appropriate action  on the  report as  indicated above.  The Corporation will be at liberty to place materials before the committees whether it comes within the exemption clause. The writ petition  is allowed  as indicated  above with costs to the petitioner  quantified at  Rs. 2,000  pay  able  by  the Corporation. S.R.                                       Petition allowed. 163