Sunita Agarwal, J.

Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Indira Jaising learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sri Krishna Mishra learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Ms.Harshita Rani learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3.

2. The issues being raised in the present bunch of writ petitions are similar and hence they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. All the connected writ petition are directed against the orders passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur on various dates, whereunder the plea of the respondent union to provide benefits of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) & (b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (in short 'the Rules, 1971') framed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short 'the Act, 1970'), has been allowed.

4. It is noteworthy that in Writ Petition No.10413 of 2018 (Area Manager Food Corporation Of India v. Union Of India & 2 Ors.), the order dated 20.9.2017, on an application dated 11.5.2017 filed by the respondent-Union with respect to 100 workers allegedly working under the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Civil Lines, Jhansi (termed as principal employer) has been challenged. The said petition has wrongly been mentioned being pertaining to District Jalaun in the Cause title.

5. The Writ Petition No.23839 of 2018 (F.C.I Mazdoor Union Uttar Pradesh & Another v. Union Of India & 6 Ors.) has been filed by the respondent no.4 namely FCI Mazdoor Union and Md. Hashim, the General Secretary of the said Union, seeking direction for implementation of the order dated 7.7.2017 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner with respect to 193 workers under the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Roza Depot, Shahjahanpur.

6. The petitioner herein is a statutory Corporation of the Government of India created by the Act of Parliament namely the Food Corporation Act, 1964. The basic work of the Food Corporation of India (in short 'the FCI') is to implement various Schemes of the Government of India for distribution of foodgrains to disadvantaged Sections of the Society through Public Distribution System at the highly subsidized rates and ensure compliance of the Food Security Act.

7. The respondent no.4 namely FCI Mazdoor Union, U.P. through its General Secretary namely Mohd. Hasim filed applications on behalf of 193 persons with respect to FCI Roza depot, Shahjahanpur, seeking for providing of the same wages and other conditions of service as that of the directly employed workmen by the principal employer of the establishment under Rule 25 (2)(v)(a) & (b) of the Rules, 1971.

8. The assertions in the application dated 2.12.2016 filed on behalf of respondent no.4 was that the 193 contract workers (members of the Union) were being engaged for carrying out the work of loading and unloading at railheads as handling and transport workers but later on similar kind of work was not being provided to the members of the union, though the Government of India had issued notification dated 6.7.2016 under Section 31 of the Act, 1970, denotifying 11 FCI Depots lifting the prohibition issued under Section 10 of the Act, 1970. It was contended that after issuance of the exemption notification, various contract workers were engaged for the work of loading and unloading at the railheads as handling and transport workers but the members of the applicant who were earlier doing similar work, were not engaged by the Corporation, the principal employer. At the same time, it was also stated therein that the Area Manager Food Storage depot Roza, Shahjahanpur and other depots were discriminating between the contract workers and the workers working under the direct payment system as against Rule 25(2)(b) of the Rules, 1971. It was, therefore, prayed that the principal employer/contractor be directed to take similar work from the members of the applicant union and provide t