ion No 13508 of 1983 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India C section Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner
Krishan Dayal NC Talukdar RN Poddar Y P Rao AK 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 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
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 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
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 102 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
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 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
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 14 a b and Proviso and Section 15 a and b and the Explanation 14 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
5a 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 14 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 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 15 quoted above
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
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
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 21 a of the Act to read as under 21 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 iiiany 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
21 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 establishment  set out in sec
2 Ie
It reads as under 21 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 2a 1 of the  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  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 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 even though both the statutes use the general expression any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government
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 vs The State of Bihar and Ors1 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 Section 2a i of the  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 vs 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 32IV 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  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 2a 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
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 1 161 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 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
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 2000 pay able by the Corporation
SR Petition allowed


Summary:
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 
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
Allowing the petition the Court 151  HELD 1 Section 10 of the 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 21 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 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 22 Section 14 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 23 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 24 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  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 even though both the statutes use the general expression any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government  169C E 25 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 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 FG 161A B Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs The State of Bihar and Ors 11969 3 SCR 995 Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh Nagpur vs The Model Mills Nagpur and Anr  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