( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions raise common question of law and arises from almost identical (acts and therefore can be disposed of by one common judgment. In all these writ petitions, interpretation of notification dated 9. 12. 1976 issued by Central Government in exereise of powers under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. 1970 is involved. The said notification reads as under:

"in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970), the Central Government after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, hereby prohibits employment of contract on and from the 1st March, 1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government: Provided that this notification shall not apply to the outside cleaning and other maintenance operations of multistoreyed buildings where such cleaning or maintenance operations cannot be carried out except with specialised experience. "

( 2 ) AS per the aforesaid notification issued by the Central Government, employment of contract labour for, interalia, "watching of buildings" has been prohibited w. e. . f. 1. 3. 1977. Petitioners in all these writ petitions are working as security guards.

( 3 ) THE question to be determined is as to whether the security services provided by the petitioners would be covered by the expression watching of buildings? If that be so, then such petitioners could not have been appointed as contract labour.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy, we may take the facts of CW No-4211/97 inasmuch as the nature of employment of such security, guards on contract basis in other petitions is almost simir/same.

( 5 ) PETITIONERS in Civil Writ No. 4211/97are Ex-armymen. Respondent No. 2 is the Airport Authority of India (hereinafter AAI) and it needs security services at various airports including IGI Airport Cargo Terminal for the purpose of providing security at IGI Airport Cargo Terminal. It has hired the services of UP Bhootpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited i. e. respondent No. 4 which is a contractor and provides such services. Petitioners are the employees of contractor and under the aforesaid contract of providing security between AAI and contractor, the petitioners are deployed/deputed as security guards at IGI Airport Cargo Terminal. They have been working as such at the aforesaid terminal from different dates. It is stand of the petitioners that they are discharging duties of permanent and perennial nature. Moreover according to petitioners, the work performed by them as security guards comes within the expression "watching of buildings" and they may be treated as direct/regular employees of AAI. It is further mentioned that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation Etc. v. United Labour Union and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 645.

( 6 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of AAI it is stated that petitioners are the employees of contractor which is a UP Government Corporation and not the employees of AAI. All these petitioners are having a separate employment agreement with contractor as per petitioners own admission. AAI have awarded contract to contractor for whom the petitioners are working. Contractor is an organisation which was awarded the job of security services at the Cargo Terminal after being sponsored by the Director General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, a department which is entrusted by the Government to resettle the ex-servicemen. The said security agency comprises of ex-servicemen of various categories who, apart from being pensioners from the services, are paid wages by contractor. The rate of finalised negotiated wages of the petitioners is much above, the rate of statutory mini