The more impo1tant aspect to be noted is the provision in llr: Explanation which makes the decision of the appropriate Govern, ment final, on ithe question, whether any process or opr.ration or work is . of a perennial nature. We have already extracted the whole of s. 10 and one of the relevant factor is that contained in E c,l. (b) of sub-s. (2) in respect of which the Explanation make~ the c!ecision of the appropriate Government final. The approm.iate Government when taking action under s. 10 will have .an overall picture of the .industries carrying on similar activities and decide whether contract labour is to be abolished in respect of any of1 the activiti·s of that industry. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the jurisdiction to decide about the abolition of contract labour, or to put it differently, to prohibit ithe employ' ment of contract labour, is now to be done in accordanc: with .s, 10 Therefore, it is proper that the question whether the con· trat labour regarding loading and unloading in the industry of the appellant is to 11' abolished or not, is left to be dealt with bv G the appropria'te Government under the Act, if it becomes wxes• sary. On this ground, we are of the opinion that •the direction of the Industri,al Tribunal in this regard wiil have to be set asid;i. The Maharas_htra Act_ also, as we have pointed out, applies :10 employmellt m factories and other establishments in connection witl! loading and unloading etc. But the said Act deals wit!> diffeH re,nt asp.~ts and that Act also has the effect of improving the conditions of both the unprotected worker and the worker as defined in the Act. But the provisions, more directly in point, as pointed out above, are those contained in the Central Act.
