Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
P. RAMANAIAH & OTHERS V/S TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS, decided on Monday, March 19, 2012.
[ In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Writ Petition No.26481 of 2011. ] 19/03/2012
Judge(s) : B. CHANDRA KUMAR
Advocate(s) : M/s.Indus Law Firm. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2012 (5) ALT 246"  ==   "2012 (5) ALD 701"  







    Constitution of India Article 226 Article 13 Article 21 Article 38 Article 39(d) (e) and (f) Article 43 Article 47; Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 Section 10; Minimum Wages Act ? Contract Labour- petitioners engaged as contract labour for serving at daily Annadanams at the Tirumala Tirupathi Devathanam temple- retrenched by emplyers- directions from Government to be sought to abolish contact system- violation of right to life- interim order ordering Devasthanams to give opportunities for petitioners made absolute.Constitution of India Article 21; Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 Section 10- Contract labour-object is to eradicate contract labour- no Act or Order contrary to directive principles- expert Committee to be constituted by Central and State Governments to remove contract labour- where nature of work is perennial labour to be regularised- at least minimum wage rate to be paid- payment of lesser amount amounts to forced labour- good work conditions to be ensured- penalties for non- compliance- Government to be model employer Cases Referred:1. Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Others (AIR 1982 SC 1473)2. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984(3) SCC 161)3. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (AIR1986 SC180):4. Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka5. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni (1983) 1 SCC 124: AIR 1983 SC 109)6. Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India (1989) Supp 1 SCC 251: AIR 1989 SC 549) 7. Kharak singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1963 SC 1295) discussed as follows.8. Munn v. Illinois (1877) 94 U.S. 1139. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248)10. Begulla Bapi Raju v. State of A.P. (1984) 1 SCC 66)11. Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging Bangalore v. The State of Mysore and another (1969) 3 SCC 84)12. Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1997 SC 3297). 13. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator Union Territory of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746) 14. M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1997 SC 699). 15. Workmen of the Food Corporation of India v. Food Corporation of India (AIR 1985 SC 670)16. Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983 Labour and Industrial Cases 312) 17. Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway etc. v. UOI (1987 (2) SLJ 23)18. The Workmen represented by Secretary v. The Management of Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. and another (AIR 1992 SC 504)19. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Chandi Lal Saha and others (AIR 1991 SC 520)     Though this matter is listed in the Interlocutory matters since both the learned counsel have agreed for the disposal of the main writ petition itself this writ petition is being disposed of.The petitioners in this writ petition seek a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not considering their case for the post of Volunteers in respondent’s Annadanam Canteen or any other posts as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint them by giving preference to their experience.Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 is as follows.10. Prohibition of employment of 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 (1) in relation to an establishment the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors such as-(a) whether the process operation or other work is incidental to or necessary for the industry trade business manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment;(b) whether it is of perennial nature that is to say it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry trade business manufacture or occupation 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.Article 21 of the Constitution of India is as follows.“21. Protection of life and personal liberty.- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Article 39(d) (e) and (f) of the Constitution of India are as follows.39(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;(e) that the health and strength of workers men and women and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.Thus Article 39(d) envisages that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women.  Article 39(e) says that health and strength of workers men and women and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength.  Article 39(f) envisages that the children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.Article 43 is as follows.“43. Living wage etc. for workers.- The State shall endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organization or in any other way to all workers agricultural industrial or otherwise work a living wage conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and in particular the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas.”Article 47 is as follows.“47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.- The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”It is the basic principle that the laws made by any State cannot be inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights under Article 13 of the Constitution of India.  Though the directive principles enshrined under Chapter 4 of the Constitution of India are not enforceable but it can be definitely said that no State Government shall make any Act contrary to or violating Article 39(d)(e) and (f) of the Constitution of India.  In fact by paying the wages less than minimum wages or a paltry amount of Rs.4500/- per month and in some cases even less than Rs.3 000/- per month the State Government or the Corporations have been indirectly violating Article 39 (e) and (f) of the Constitution of India.When fundamental rights have been violated or orders have been issued contrary to Article 39(d)(e) and (f) and Articles 43 and 47 and minimum wage is denied the same amounts to violating the philosophy directions and basic structure of the Constitution of India.  There cannot be any Act Order or Regulation which directly or indirectly defeat the above Articles.  Therefore it becomes an obligatory on the part of the Central Government and State Governments to constitute an expert committee or refer the matter to the Law Commission to make a detailed study as to whether any enactment order regulations etc. made by the Central Government/State Government is violating Articles 39 43 47 and 23 of the Constitution of India and to take appropriate steps.  It becomes obligatory on the part of the Court to do the needful for rendering justice to such workers and employees.In People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Others (AIR 1982 SC 1473) the Apex Court observed as follows.“The time has now come when the courts must become the courts for the poor and struggling masses of this country They must shed their character as upholders of the established order and the status quo. They must be sensitised to the need of doing justice to the large masses of people to whom justice has been denied by a cruel and heartless society for generations.”  Before entering into the merits of the case as seen from the above articles and provisions of relevant laws it is pertinent to mention that the very purpose of enacting Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 is to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and for its abolition in certain circumstances.  Thus the primary object of the said act is to remove the system of contact labour ultimately where the nature of the work is perennial.  However the Government whose responsibility is to see that the workers and employees are not being exploited by the middlemen and contractors have been issuing orders to engage the workers on contract basis or outsourcing basis in the guise of lessening the financial burden on the state exchequer.  Because of the poverty and unemployment persons are forced to accept any employment either as contract workers or through outsourcing agencies.  This is nothing by exploiting the helpless situation of the young people belonging to poorer sections.  In fact the Government should be the model employer and they must pay minimum wages as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act so that the employees and workers may sustain and provide basic needs to their family members.  When a person is paid Rs.1000/- to Rs.4500/- how can he provide nutritious food to his children and fulfill the bare minimum needs like health and education to his family.  Therefore we feel that the time has now come that the Government should reconsider the issue and provide employment to all such persons keeping in view the philosophy of the Constitution and mandate of fundamental rights and direction of directive principles of state policy.In the instant case the respondent – Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams should consider the relief sought for by the petitioners and all such workers on humanitarian grounds and keeping in view the philosophy and teachings of all the great saints evolve a policy and method and approach the Government and seek necessary directions from the Government to completely abolish the contract or outsourcing system in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and to fill up all the posts with the employees on regular basis so that it may become a model employer in the country.  The contract system has been ultimately helping the contractors.  We hope and trust that as far as Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams are concerned there is no financial constraint to them to solve this humane problem and the Government will not come in the way of providing regular employment to all such employees.Coming to the facts of the case the case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Volunteers in the Annadanam Canteen of the respondent Devasthanams on different dates and have been discharging their duties to the utmost satisfaction of their superiors and that while the services of the similarly situated persons were being regularized by the respondent Devasthanams the petitioners were retrenched from employment which resulted in filing of I.D.No.186 of 2007 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court Ananthapur by them.  The Tribunal however ordered reinstatement of the petitioners into service but without back-wages.  Aggrieved by the same the respondent Devasthanam approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15119 of 2009 and obtained interim suspension of the award of the Tribunal which has lead the petitioners to file this writ petition seeking the relief stated supra.This Court while admitting the writ petition on 23.09.2011 passed the following interim direction:-“The petitioners claim to have been engaged by the T.T.D. to render services as Volunteers between 1986 and 1989 and that they have been disengaged.  On earlier occasion they have approached the Labour Court also.  They seek direction to the respondents to engage them as Volunteers.Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao learned standing counsel on instructions submits that the Government has insisted that the Temple must engage persons whenever there is need on outsourcing basis.There shall be interim direction to the respondents to the effect that whenever any contract for rendering cleaning and other services is awarded to an outsourcing agency a condition shall be incorporated to the effect that they shall engage such of the petitioners who are fit eligible and willing to render services.  The petitioners shall submit their representations in this regard to the respondent.”Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that as per the directions of the Government the respondents have no other way except to engage the workers through outsourcing basis and it is for the outsourcing agency to select the persons and sponsor them to work.  It is also his submission that if the respondent Devasthanams gives a direction to the outsourcing agency to engage the petitioners the petitioners may take advantage of the same and claim their right of employment in respondent Devasthanams in future.Ultimately the outsourcing agency has to send some persons to work in the respondent Devasthanams on outsourcing basis.  The outsourcing agencies may be more concerned with the commission which they get but not with the interests of the persons whom they engage to work.The Apex Court in BandhuaMukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984(3) SCC 161)   interpreted right to life thus.“It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country assured under the interpretation given Article 21 by this Court in Francis Mullin's case to live with human dignity free from citation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 Articles 41 and 42 and at the least therefore it must include protection of the health and strength of workers men and women and of the tender age of children against abuse unities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity educational facilities just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to (with human dignity and no State - neither the Central Government nor any State eminent has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment basic essentials. Since the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 Articles 41 and 42 are not enforceable in a court of law it may not be possible to compel the State through the judicial process to make provision by statutory enactment or executive fiat for ensuring these basic essentials which go to make up a life of dignity but where legislation is already enacted by the State providing these basic requirements to the workmen and thus investing their right to live with basic human dignity concrete reality and content the State can certainly be obligated to ensure observance of legislation for inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such direction would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 more so in the context of Article 256 which provides that the executive power of every State so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any 's which apply in that State.This was elaborated in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation  (AIR1986 SC180):“……………An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of living that is the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right life the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to live. That which alone makes it possible to live leave aside what makes life liveable must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life. Indeed that explains the massive migration of the rural population to big cities. They migrate because they have no means of livelihood in the villages. The motive force which propels their desertion of their hearts and homes in the village is the struggle for survival that is the struggle for life. So unimpeachable is the evidence of the nexus between life and the means of livelihood. They have to eat to live: Only a handful can afford the luxury of living to eat. That they can do namely eat only if they have the means of livelihood. That is the context in which it was said by Douglas J. in Baksey that the right to work is the most precious liberty that man possesses. It is the most precious liberty because it sustains and enables a man to live and the right to life is a precious freedom. Life as observed by Field J. in Munn v. Illinois means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed.Article 39(a) of the Constitution which is a Directive Principle of State Policy provides that the State shall in particular direct its policy towards securing that the citizens men and women equally have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. Article 41 which is another Directive Principle provides inter alia that the State shall within the limits of its economic capacity and development make effective provision for securing the right to work in cases of unemployment and of undeserved want. Article 37 provides that the Directive Principles though not enforceable by any court are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country. The principles contained in Articles 39(a) and 41 must be regarded as equally fundamental in the understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental rights. If there is an obligation upon the State to secure to the citizens an adequate means of livelihood and the right to work it would be sheer pedantry to exclude the right to life. The State may not by affirmative action be compellable to pro vide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred by Article 21.Now coming to Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka it was observed at pages 679-80:“Right to life is the compendious expression for all those rights which the courts must enforce because they are basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. It extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue. The right to education flows directly from right to life. The right to life under Article 21 and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education. The State Government is under an obligation to make endeavor to provide educational facilities at all levels to its citizens.”The object of “Life” has been discussed in various judgments of the Apex Court as follows.In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni (1983) 1 SCC 124: AIR 1983 SC 109) it was discussed as follows. “Article 21 which mandates that no one shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The expression 'life' does not merely connote animal existence or a continued drudgery through life. The expression 'life' has a much wider meaning. Where therefore the outcome of a departmental enquiry is likely to adversely affect reputation or livelihood of a person some of the finer graces of human civilisation which make life worth living would be jeopardised and the same can be put in jeopardy only by law which inheres fair procedures.”In RamsharanAutyanuprasi v. Union of India (1989) Supp 1 SCC 251: AIR 1989 SC 549) it was discussed as follows.“Life” in its expanded horizons today includes all that give meaning to a man's life including his tradition culture and heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure would certainly come within the encompass of an expanded concept of Article 21 of the Constitution.”The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Kharaksingh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1963 SC 1295) discussed as follows.“No person not even a prisoner can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.  The American Constitution by the 5th and 14th Amendments provides inter alia that no person shall be deprived of “life liberty or property without due process of law”.  Explaining the scope of this provision Field J. observed in Munn v. Illinois (1877) 94 U.S. 113 that the term “life” means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed.”In ManekaGandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248) it was discussed as follows.Among the great guaranteed rights life and liberty are the first among equals carrying a universal connotation cardinal to a decent human order and protected by constitutional armour. Truncate liberty in Article 21 traumatically and the several other freedoms fade out automatically.  To sum up personal liberty makes for the worth of the human person. Travel makes liberty worthwhile. Life is a terrestrial opportunity for unfolding personality rising to higher states moving to fresh woods and reaching out to reality which makes our earthly journey a true fulfilment-not a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing but a fine frenzy rolling between heaven and earth. The spirit of Man is at the root of Article 21. Absent liberty other freedoms are frozen.In BegullaBapi Raju v. State of A.P. (1984) 1 SCC 66) it was discussed as follows.Right to live is not merely confined to physical existence but it includes within its ambit the right to live with basic human dignity and the State cannot deprive anyone of this valuable right.The object of Minimum Wages has been discussed by the Apex Court in Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging Bangalore v. The State of Mysore and another (1969) 3 SCC 84) which isas follows.“Its main object is to prevent sweated labour as well as exploitation of unorganised labour. It proceeds on the basis that it is the duty of the State to see that at least minimum wages are paid to the employees irrespective of the capacity of the industry or unit to pay the same. The mandate of Article 43 of the Constitution is that the State should endeavour to secure by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way to all workers agricultural industrial or otherwise work a living wage conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of liesure and social and cultural opportunities. The fixing of minimum wages is just the first step in that direction. In course of time the State has to take many more steps to implement that mandate. As seen earlier that resolutions of the Geneva Convention of 1928 which had been accepted by this country called upon the covenanting States to fix minimum wages for the employees in employments where the labour is unorganized or where the wages paid are low. Minimum wage does not mean wage just sufficient for bare sustenance. At present the conception of a minimum wage is a wage which is somewhat intermediate to a wage which is just sufficient for bare sustenance and a fair wage. That concept includes not only the wage sufficient to meet the bare sustenance of an employee and his family it also includes expenses necessary for his other primary needs such as medical expenses expenses to meet some education for his children in some cases transport charges etc.Life is a powerful miracle which cannot be understood.  It can be said that without life no living being can see hear move and talk.  If life goes out of body the body will become a corpse.  Where from life has come and where it would go probably nobody has explained the same correctly.  In a case where the throat of a person is cut or in a case of accident resulting in excessive bleeding or in case of hanging where the breathing of a person is forcibly stopped it appears that the life goes out of the body.  Similarly when water is not made available to a person or minimum food is not made available to a person for days together and if the life conditions become very hard and difficult it will be difficult to keep the sole and body together.  Thus the human body and life to be together certain conditions are required.  If the conditions are so worst or if there is forcible pressure which a person cannot bear the life goes out of body.  Probably keeping all these factors in their mind the Minimum Wages Act has been enacted.The Minimum Wage has to be fixed taking into consideration the cost of living index number or a basic rate of wages with or without the cost of living allowance and the cash value of the concessions in respect of supplies of essential commodities at concession rates where so authorized; or an all-inclusive rate allowing for the basic rate the cost of living allowance and the cash value of the concessions if any.Thus the Minimum Wages should be such as would be sufficient not merely for subsistence of life of employee but also for preservation of a human being.  It must provide for some measure of education medical expenses and amenities besides food water.The Apex Court in Samathav. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1997 SC 3297) observed that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 means something more than mere survival of animal existence.It is not in dispute that the Apex Court in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator Union Territory of Delhi (AIR 1981 SC 746) declared that the right to life includes right to live with human dignity.The very purpose of enacting the Minimum Wages Act is to see that no worker/employee is deprived of his minimum wage and thereby to see that the worker or his family members who are depending upon his income are not deprived of the basic requirements of minimum food medical facilities and primary education to their children.  Thus every citizen has a right to be protected from hunger and under nutrition.  The fact remains that several laws have been made by the Central Government to protect the interest of workers.  Even during British Regime several enactments such as Trade Unions Act 1926 Payment of Wages Act 1936 Minimum Wages Act Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 and Industrial Disputes Act 1947 have been enacted.  Soon after independence several Acts such as Employees Provident Fund Act 1952 Employees State Insurance Act Payment of Bonus Act 1965 and Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 have been enacted.  For non-compliance of statutory provision such as for non-payment of Minimum Wages penalties have been provided.  Several Acts have been enacted in pursuance of the objects to be achieved under Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India.Where children were forced to do hazardous employment the Apex Court has issued directions to the State to see that an adult member of the whose child is in employment in a factory mine or hazardous employment gets employment anywhere in lieu of the child (See M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1997 SC 699).Unfortunately several State Governments have been adopting a dubious method of engaging the employees as contract workers or through some agencies.  Even where the Corporations like APSRTC are engaging the workers on contract basis.  The contract workers are being paid less than Rs.4500/-  per month.  Where a worker is engaged through a contractor or through agencies they after deducting their commission pay the wages to the workers.  The net result is that the workers and employees are not being paid the minimum wages.  Probably with a fond hope that their services would be regularized subsequently they are working as contract workers or through agencies.  This is nothing but exploiting the helplessness of those workers and thereby denying them the minimum wages.  It certainly violates the right to life guaranteed to those workers/employees.The another important factor to be taken into consideration is that whatever rights that workers are having under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act or other laws prescribing service conditions or procedure for retrenching the workers or for closing an industry all such provisions are now not amenable to the workers since it is said that they are engaged through contractors.  It has to be seen that the very purpose of enacting the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 is to see that ultimately the contract system is to be abolished.   Thus the very purpose is being violated and defeated by no other than the Government and its instrumentalities.  It is necessary to reproduce the state of objects and reasons of the Act.The system of employment of contract labour lends itself to various abuses.  The question of its abolition has been under the consideration of Government for a long time.  In the Second Five-Year Plan the Planning Commission made certain recommendations namely undertaking of studies to ascertain the extent of the problem of contract labour progressive abolition of the system and improvement of service conditions of contract labour where the abolition was not possible.  The matter was discussed at various meetings of Tripartite Committees at which the State Governments were also represented and the general consensus of opinion was that the system should be abolished wherever possible and practicable and that in cases where this system could not be abolished altogether the working conditions of the contract labour should be regulated so as to ensure payment of wages and provision of essential amenities.The proposed Bill aims at the abolition of contract labour in respect of such categories as may be notified by the appropriate government in the light of certain criteria that have been laid down and at regulating the service conditions of contract labour where abolition is not possible.  The bill provides for the setting up of a Advisory Board of a tripartite character representing various interests to advise the Central and State governments in administering the legislation and registration of establishments and contractors.  Under the scheme of the Bill the provision and maintenance of certain basic welfare amenities for contract labour like drinking water and first-aid facilities and in certain cases rest-rooms and canteens have been made obligatory.  Provisions have also been made to guard against defaults in the matters of wage payment.The Apex Court in case between the Workmen of the Food Corporation of India v. Food Corporation of India (AIR 1985 SC 670) discussed the object of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and observed that the Act was enacted with a view to abolishing wherever possible or practicable the employment of contract labour.  The Act aimed at abolition of contract labour in respect of such categories where the law helps such anti labor practices must be thwarted or nipped in the bud.The main criteria should be the nature of the work.  Whether the work is perennial or not?  As far as Annadanam in temples is concerned it is perennial in nature.  The work involve cooking of food cleaning of utensils cleaning the dining room serving the food etc. cannot be said to be casual.  It is definitely perennial in nature.  Casual work means “work which can be completed within a short period.  For example white washing or colouring to a building as soon as white washing or colouring is over the work is completed.  So whenever a worker is employed for casual nature of work such work should be treated as casual.  But where the nature of work is continuous regular and cannot be completed within a specified period employing the workers or employees in such kind of work/employment cannot be treated as casual and cannot be entrusted to the contractors or agencies.It has to be seen that the wages being paid to the workers in mid day meals scheme in other works is even less than Rs.1000/-.  For sweeping work the remuneration is less than Rs.2000/-.  Security Guards are being paid about Rs.3000/-.  Even in APSRTC the salary of a contract driver is Rs.4500/- per month.  It has to be seen whether a contract worker can afford to pay the minimum fees prescribed for securing a seat in Government Engineering College even in merit quota.  How can a worker/employee who is getting a salary of Rs.4500/- per month can think of providing education to his children.  Thus their children though intelligent or secured a good rank in the EAMCET in any Engineering College cannot prosecute their education due to poverty.The Apex Court in SanjitRoy v. State of Rajasthan (1983 Labour and Industrial Cases 312)observed that paying less than minimum wage prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act amounts to compelling the workers to do forced labour.Though in Software Companies the salaries are attractive there is no job guarantee and a detailed scientific study has to be done how the environment and work with computers has been affecting their health.  In the name of globalization industrialization and for encouraging multi national companies Special Economic Zones (SEZs) have been created and the employees working in all such industries i.e. in multi national companies have lost all their rights which are otherwise available to them under several enactments made for the welfare of the employees.Whether catering and cleaning is casual or perennial in nature came up for consideration in Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway etc. v. UOI (1987 (2) SLJ 23) wherein the Apex Court observed thus.“……………the work of cleaning catering establishments and pantry cars is necessary and incidental to the industry or business of the Southern Railway and so requirement (a) of Section 10 (2) is satisfied that it is of a perennial nature and so requirement (b) is satisfied that the work is done through regular workmen in most Railways in the country and so requirement (c) is satisfied and that the work requires the employment of sufficient number of whole time workmen and so requirement (d) is also satisfied. Thus all the relevant factors mentioned in Section 10(2) appear to be satisfactorily accounted for. In addition to we have the factor of profitability of the catering establishments. On these facts the petitioners straight away invite us to issue a mandamus directing the Central Government to abolish the contract labour system under which cleaners in catering establishments and pantry cars arc at present employed in the Southern Railway. But we refrain from doing so because under Section 10 Parliament has vested in the appropriate Government the power to prohibit the employment of contract labour in any process operation or other work in any establishment. The appropriate Government is required to consult the Central Board or the State Board as the case may be before arriving at its decision. The decision of course will be subject to judicial review.”The Apex Court in The Workmen represented by Secretary v. The Management of Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. and another (AIR 1992 SC 504) referring the concept of minimum wage observed that the concept of minimum wage is no longer the same as in 1936.  Even 1957 is a way  behind Minimum Wages is not just contract.  It has force of collective bargaining under the labour laws.  Each category of the wage structure has to be tested at anvil of social justice which is the live-fibre of our society today.The Apex Court in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. ChandiLal Saha and others (AIR 1991 SC 520) observed as follows.“The management specially of public undertakings are bound by the Directive Principles of the State policy enshrined under Part IV of the Constitution of India. The workers must be ensured a living wage just and human conditions of work and a decent standard of life. The management must endeavour to secure for the workmen apart from Wages other amenities like supply of essential commodities at concessional rates medical aid housing facility education for children old age benefits and opportunities for social cultural and sports activities. All these amenities may be capable of being expressed in terms of money but it is clear from the scheme of the Act that these concessions do not come within the definition of Wages as given Under Section 2(h) of the Act.”Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case I consider it just and reasonable to give opportunity to the petitioners to work in the respondent Devasthanams through outsourcing agency.Accordingly this Writ Petition is disposed of by making the interim order passed by this Court on 23.09.2011 in W.P.M.P.No.32680 of 2011 absolute and directing the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioners to work in the respondent Devasthanams as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the said interim order.  The respondents shall make all efforts to implement this order within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  There shall be no order as to costs.In view of my general observations in this order the Chief Secretary to Government Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Principal Secretary to Government (Endowments) Government of Andhra Pradesh are suomotu added as respondents to this writ petition.  They are directed to constitute a committee to examine all these aspects and to formulate a scheme for abolishing the system of engaging the employees through contractors or other agencies and to see that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are not denied to such workers/employees.  The Registry is directed to mark copies of this order to them to enable them to take necessary steps keeping in view the observations made supra.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.  There shall be no order as to costs.