( 1 ) IN these three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, notifications issued by the State government of Gujarat under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the act, have been challenged, and since common points are involved in the three petitions, they are being heard and decided together.

( 2 ) A. Special C. A. No. 3754/85 is filed by a firm of contractors engaged in the business of performing job contract work of screen printing of Art Silk Fabrics on behalf of certain principal employers at Surat. They have challenged the notification Annexure-A dated March 11, 1985, issued by the State Government on the recommendation of the State advisory Contract Labour Board prohibiting the employment of contract labour in the establishments of Art Silk textile Units in Surat District and surrounding areas in respect of processes of bleaching, finishing and dying and printing The petitioners have also challenged the vires of Section 10 of the act. 2. B. Spl. C. A. No. 2512/85 in which the said Notification has come under challenge, had been filed by South Gujarat textiles Processors Association, and other petitioners engaged in the business of processing man-made fabrics at Surat and Bulsar. 2. C. The third petition, namely, Spl. C. A. No. 8851/89, filed by the same employers Association is directed against the subsequent Notification dated 26th may 1989, issued by the State government of Gujarat under Section 10 of the Act, prohibiting the employment of contract labour in the establishments of Art Silk Textile Processing Units in respect of dyeing, bleaching, finishing and printing processes throughout the State of Gujarat, after consultation with the state Contract Labour Advisory Board appointed under Section 4 of the Act. 2. D. As stated earlier, the grounds on which the challenge to the two notifications is based, are common. Therefore at the request and with the consent of all the Advocates appearing for the parties all the three petitions are being decided together. Special C. A. No. 3754/85 incidentally, contains the challenge to the vires of Section 10 also.

( 3 ) THE following undisputed facts require to be noted: as certain representations had been made by the Union of Employees (INTUC, south Gujarat Branch), for abolition of contract labour system prevalent in the dying and printing processes of Art Silk processing Union in Surat, an Advisory board was constituted, consisting of 11 members and presided over by a Retired judge of this Court. A reference was made to the said Board calling for its report on the question whether the contract labour system should be abolished or not. After receiving the reference the Board issued notices to various Art Silk Textile processing Units working in Surat and neighbouring areas and called for certain information in Pro formas. The Board received information from different units and it was found that contract labour system did not exist in five specified units or establishments. South Gujarat Textile processors Association, petitioner in Spl. C. A. No. 2512/85 as well as Sp. C. A. No. 8851/89, which is an Employers association, having on its register 129 members carrying on processing work in surat and neighbouring areas filed its reply. Information and replies were also received from other employees Union and contractors, but only two contractors took part in the deliberations. The meeting held by the Advisory Board was attended by the representatives of the establishment and employees Union. The Board also visited and took inspection of the factories and made a note of the local inspection. After taking into consideration the Pro forma information received from the different units and replies as well as letters received from the employers and contractors, and after holding several meetings and deliberations with the different interests, the Advisory Board noted the views of the principal e