Holding

The appropriate Government for the regional offices and warehouses of the Food Corporation of India is the State Government, not the Central Government.

Summary

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) employs contract labour through contractors. Contract labourers, organized by the Food Corporation of India Workers' Union, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking departmentalisation or, alternatively, the extension of benefits under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, including equal wages. The key issue was which authority—Central or State Government—qualified as the “appropriate Government” under the Act for FCI’s regional offices and warehouses. The Court examined the definitions in the Act, the Industrial Disputes Act, and relevant case law, concluding that the establishments of FCI are not “industries carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government” and therefore fall under the residuary clause, making the State Government the appropriate authority. While the Court declined to grant the full relief sought due to insufficient material, it issued a mandamus directing all State Governments (except Madhya Pradesh, which had already acted) to constitute committees under Section 5 of the Act to examine the possibility of abolishing contract labour and to report within prescribed time‑frames. Costs were awarded to the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether the 'appropriate Government' under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for Food Corporation of India establishments situated in states is the Central Government or the respective State Government.
Whether the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 apply to the establishments and contractors of the Food Corporation of India.
What relief, if any, can be granted to contract labourers through a writ of mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970s. 10, s. 1(4), s. 1(5), s. 2(1)(a), s. 2(1)(e), s. 5
Food Corporation Act, 1964
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 2(a)(1)

Subjects

Contract labourAppropriate GovernmentContract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Food Corporation of IndiaWrit of mandamusState vs Central jurisdictionDepartmentalisation

Judgment

A FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA WORKERS' UNION

v.

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

B March 1, 1985

[D.A. DESAI AND V. KHALID, JJ.]

Ct>ntract Aabour Regulation and Abolition) Act. 1970 Section 2 (I) (a) read
with section! 2 (I) (e) 1(4) (a), (b) and Proviso and I (5) (a) and (b) and the
c Explanation-Terms "apporopriate Government", clarified-Appropriate Govern·
ment 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 e.Jtab/ishment situated in the States is the respective State Government
under sub-section 2 of section 2 (a) and not rhe Central Guvernment-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)
D (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, meaning of-N:.1ture of relief that can
be qrt1nted. outlined.

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)
E
direct paid labour ; and (3) Contract labour who are employed by the
Corporation through the intermediary of contractors. I he 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 the11.1 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
F Union Govern.ment or to the concerned State Governments, to extend
to them' the benefits of the Act, for a direction to the corporation to pay
tkem th~ same wages as are paid to the departmentalised labour and other
'rclicf5. TAc Corporation pleaded that the approoriate Government for the
purpose of the claims of the petitioners working in its establishment in a State
G is the concerned State Government and not the Central Government, which
stand~was adopted by ihe 15th Re~pondent State of Madhya Pradesh and the
21st Respondent State of Punjab through their respective affidavits and there-
fore disowned its responsibility. The other States did not file their counter
at all.

Allowing the petition, the Court,
H
y
WORKERS; UNION v. FOOD CORPORATION 151
HELD : Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Aboli- A
tion) Act, 1970 enables the appropriate Government by a suitable notification
after making a study of the conditions laid down therein to prOhibit employ-
ment of contract labour in any 'process, operation, or other ·work' in aay
establishment. The petitioners 1 complaint that despite several disputes aad
respresentations 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 B
the other as the appropriate Government for redressal of their grievances is
justified. [1550-E]

2.1 On the interpretation of the relevant sections namely, 1 (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 region~l offices and warehouses of the e C
Food Corporation of Tndia in the fespective States i'i 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 contrdctors it employs come D
within the ambit of tne provisions of this Act. [156F]

2.3 Various warehouses, godowns and places alike set up .by the
Corporation would be establishments where the trade of the corporatiOn is
being carried on and within the m~aning of the term "establishment" in section
2 (I) (e) (ii).of the Act. [158E]
E
2.4 It is a well-established canon of statutory construction that legis-
lature 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 i 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 F
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.' [l69C-E]
G
2.5 Looking to the placement of the expression in the definition clauSe
of the Contract Labour Act and the purpose for \Vhich 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 aq. 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
H
is2 SUPREME COURT RBPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R.
controlled industry, sub-clause (1) of sub-sectien (1) of section 2 (a) of the Act
A
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 tlie Labour Ministry which had
cl8.rifi.ed that the respective State Governments are the 'appropriate Govern-
ments• for the corporation's establishments situated in the State. The Union
B of India has correctly taken a similar stand and ·the States of Punjab and
Madhya Pro.desb have also affirmed it. [160B; F;IG; 161A-B]

Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. The State of Bihar and Ors., [1969) 3
SCR 995; Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur v. The Model MU/s, Nagpur
and Anr., AIR 1984 SC 1813, applied.

c • l. Ia;~, ia&tant case, it wiJJ not be possible or proper for tha Court to
graut the reliefs prayed by the petitioner in full on the materials on record, the
materials being scanty and insufficient for a comprehensive adjudication of 1he
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 to the
D 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 Jabour
in the Corporation altogether. [161 F-Gl

E ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 13508 of 1983

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

C. S. Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner.

F Krishan Dayal, N.C. Talukdar, R.N. Poddar, Y.P. Rao,
A.K. Sanghi and R. K. Mehta for the Respondents.

\!'he Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KHALID, J. This is representative action brought on behalf of
G
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 beuefit of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'The Act'),
H
F. C. WORKERS; UNION~- FOOD CORPORATION (Khaiid, J.) 153
The petitioners complaint is that the Central and .the State Govern- A
ments play hide and seek, one pointing to the other as the
appropriate Govenment 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 (here-
in after called 'The Corporation') ; the second· respondent : Union B.
of India; the third respondent: Chief Labour Oimmissioner (Central)
and respondents 4 to 22, various State Governments. The. Corpo-
ration has been entrusted by the second respondent with the duty of
procuring food grains and its movement and distribution throgh-
-!
~··
out the country. The corporation employs for the discharge
of this work three types of labourers : (I) departmentalised labour c
who are its regular employees; (2) direct paid Jabour; and (3) con-
tract Jabour who are employ·ed by the Corporation through the
intermediery of contractors. The petitioners have been trying to
pursuade the Corporation for progressive departmantalisation of
its Jabour. They, however, did not succeed. Their grievance is D
that even the limited benefits available to them under the provisions
of 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. E·.

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 Govern-
m.ent, and that it is not practicable for the Corporation to employ
. the labour whom the petitioner represent as departmental labour F
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 differeni points pepending upon
the procurement, movement and off take of food grains. It is
further stated that it is not easy for abolition of Contract labour
employed by the Corporation since other like organisations connec-
ted with the Government of India also empley contract labourers
and hence abolition af contract labour cannot be consideder
...( in isolation for the Corporation a.lone. Among the State Govern-
'
mei;ts, the 15th respondent (the State of Madhya Pradesh) ~nd the
21st respondent (the State of Punjab) have filed their respective H
counter-affidavits.
154 SUPREME COURT REl>OR TS [1985] 3 s.c.a.

A 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
B on such matters as are 1 eferred to it, that it has also constituted a
committee on 31st March !981 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.

c 5. In the Counter-affidavit flied on behalf of respondent No.
21, (the State of Punjab) it is stated that th.e appropriate Govern-
ment for the purpose of the Act for the regional office of tne
Corporation in the Punjab State, is the State Gov.ernment.

6. Before considering the claims of the petitioners, we will
D
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-
E
(I) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
·the apppopriate Government may, after consultation with
the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board,
prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette, employ-
ment of contract labour in any process operation or other
F work in any establishment.

(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section
(I) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate Govern-
ment shall have regard to the conditions of work and
benefits provided for the contract labour in that establish·
e ment 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
H in the !establishment;
P.c. WORKERS' UNION v. FOOD CORPORATION (Khalid, J.) 155
(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to A
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 B
similar thereto;

(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable
number of whole time workmen.

Explanation-If a question arises whether any process c
or operation or other work is of perennial nature, the deci-
sion 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 D
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 Corporal.ion. This complaint appears to be justified. E

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 F
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 al)y G
day of the preceding twelve months as contract
labour;

(b) to every contractor who employs or who employ-
ed on any day of the preceding twelve months
twenty or more workmen; H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS t198SJ J s.c.ll..
I Provided that the appropriate Government may. after giving
not less thnn two months' notice of its intention so to do, by noti-
fication 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.

B (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 esta-
blishment is of an intermittent or casual nature, the appropriate
Government shall decide that question a(ter consultation with the
Central Board or, a• the case may be, a State Board, and its decision
sh all be final.

E1p!anation : For the purpose of this sub-section, work per-
formed in an establishment shall not be deemed to be of an intermit-
D taut 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
E more than sixty days in a year."

Section 1(4) deals with the application of the Act to establish-
ments and contractors answering to the description given therein.
It was not disputed before us that the establishment in question
and the contractors it employs come within the ambit of the pro-
F
visions of this Act. However, an investigation is necessary to collect
factual details to ascertain whether the €orporation comes within
the exemption indicated in clause I (5) quoted abovt.

8. Section 3 speaks of a Central Advisory Board to advise
G the Central Government on matters arising out of the administra-
>
tion of the Act and Section 4 speaks similarly of State Advisory
Boards. Section 5 confers on the Central Boad or the State Boards
as the case may be the power to constitute committees for the
proper impleme~tation 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
. F. C. WORKERS' .UNION v. FOOD CORPORATION (Khalid, J.) 157

registration containing the necessary particulars. Chapter IV deals A
with the licence ofa 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 B
Act and each of them bas by infringement of the provisions of the
Act rendered themselves liable to be prosecuted. Since the cont·
ractors have not g?t themselves licenced, the labourers find it
difficult to invoke the relevant ·provisions of the Rules to seciire the
benefits to them under the Act. ·
c'
10. Now the question as to which ls the appropriate Govern·
ment 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,
D
have not filed their counter affidavits. In the writ petition the
petitio'ners have indicated that the Central and the State Govern·
ments 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 :
E·
"2(1) (a) "Appropriate Government means, :

(1) in relation to-

(I) any establishment pertaining to any industry
-:'J.
I
carried on by or under the authority of the Central
F
Government, or pertaining to any such controlled
industry as may be specified m this behalf by the
Central Government, or

(ii) any. establishment ·of any railway Cantonment G
Board, major port, mine or oil field, or

(iii) any establishment of a banking or insurance com-
pany,

(2) the Central Government,
H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.k

A in relation to any other establishment the Govern-
ment of the State in which that other establish-
ment is situated."

A bare reading will show that sub-els. (ii) and (iii) of sec. 2(1) •
(a) are not attracted in this case. The question then is whether
B various establishments of the Corporation spread all over the coua-
try 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 ;nd ~mbit of sub-cl. (i) of sub-sec. (I) of sec. 2 (I) (a), it
c would be advantageous to refer to the definition of 'establishment'
set out in sec. 2 (l)(e). It reads as under:

"2(1) (e)-Establishment means-

(i) any office or department of the Government or a
D
local authority, or

(ii) any place where any industry, trade, business,
manufacture or occupation is carried on."
-'--
E We would be concerned with sub·cl (ii) of Sec. 2 (I) (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
F 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 atten-
tion to the definition of 'appropriate Government' as set out in
Section 2(a) (I) of the l•dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides
that 'appropriate Government' means: (i) in relation to any indus-
trial dispute concerning a»y industry carried on by or under the
~uthority of Central GovcrnmeRt (omitting the words not necessary
for the present purposc) ... or in relation to an industrial dispute
concerning the ...... Food Corporation of India established under
Section
.
3I or a Board of Management established for two Of mQr~
F.C. WORKERS' UNWN v. °FOOOD CORPORATION (Khalid, J.) 159

contiguou; States under Section 16 of the Food Corporation Act, A
1964 ...... , the Central Government. Obviously, therefore, for the
purpose of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in relation to any indus-
trial dispute concerning the Food Corporation of India, the Cen-
tral Government is the appropriate Government, There is an ex-
press reference to the Food Corporation of India. If the Food 1 •
Corpor.tion of India was an establishment in an industry carried on B
by or under the authority of the Central ( overnment, 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 a;oid tautology and redundancy. If Food Corporation of India'
was an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Centr"l
Government, it would have been comprehended in the first part of
c
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.
p.ointed out that the expression in the Act does not include by name D
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 th'e Central
Government. E

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 n1ore res integra. In Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. The F
State of Bihar and Ors.\lJ this Court held that the expression 'any
industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Govern-
7
ment' as used in the definition of expression 'appropriate Govern-
ment' in 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 mlitor.' G
This Court took notice of the fact that the entire share capital of the
Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., was contributed bv the
Central Government and extensive powers were conferred _on .it and

(!) (1969]- 3 S<;;R 995
ff
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19 85] 3 S.C.R.

A yet ~he 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
B placement of the expression in the definition clause of the Act and
the purpose for which it is enacted, the expression 'any industry car-
ried 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.,(') to which both
c of us were parties, while interpreting more or less an identical
expression occuring in Section 32(iv) of the Banns 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
D·
' not the Central Government observing that even where an authoris-
ed 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
Governmcpt, but the undertaking none-the-less remains an under-
E 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 expressi~n 'any industry carried on by or under the authority of
the Central Government' under the Act. Let it be made clear that
F it was not suggested that the various establishments of the Corpora-
tion pertain to any contr0llcd industry. Therefore, sub-clause (i)
of Sub-section (IJ 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.
G,
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 tiled by the Corporation, it is stated that this

Q (1) AIR 1984 SC 181,
F. C. WORKERS' UNION v. I'OOD CORPORATION (Kha/id, J.) 161

question was examined by the Labour Ministry and that the said A
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 B
in the respective States is the State Government and not the Central
Government.

The State of Punjab and the State of Madhya Pradesh have
also stated in their respective counter-affidavits that the 'appropriate
) Government' for the purpose of the Act for the regional offices of c
the Corporation in their respective States is the State Goverpment.
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.
0
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.
E
· 14. However, we are of the opinion that it may not be possi-
ble or proper for u.s 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 con-
, . tains provisions enabling the 'appropriate Government' to get F
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 G
report as to whether it would be possible to abolish contract labour
in the Corporation altogether. In so doing, we will hav~ 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 H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 s.uch 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
B 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 indica-
ted above with costs to the petitioner quantified at Rs. 2,000 pay-
C able by the Cotporation.

S.R. Petition allowed.