Judgment S. Roy, 1- By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed fur issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to for bear from enforcing annexure-5. the order palled by respondent no 2 under rule 25 (v) (a) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules (the Rules) framed under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (the Act) and annexure 4 the letter dated 19th December, 1977 issued under the signature of respondent no. 1 calling upon the Petitioner to inform him about this progress made to comply the order as contained in annexure 5. 2. The petitioner, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, entered into a contract with respondent no. 4 for transporting iron ore from the mining faces to bunker and stock pile. On 21st March, 1974 there was an inspection of the establishment of the petitioner by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central )(the LEO (C) and it was found that the petitioner was paying wages to the drivers cleaners-cum khalasis and loaders at a rate lesser than paid by respondent no. 4, the principal employer. A notice was given to the petitioner to file show cause why legal action be not taken against it (Annexure-l). In the show cause the petitioner contested the matter. The LEO (C) thereafter filed report for the prosecution of the petitioner. The criminal case. however, ended in acquittal as there was no evidence to prove that the workmen employed by the petitioner were doing same or similar kind of work as those employed by respondent no.4. The order is Annexure-2. Respondent no.4, the principal employer, referred the matter to respondent no.2 under rule 25(v) (a) of the Rules. Respondent no. 2 issued notices to respondent no. 4 and LEO(C) fixing the due of hearing. As there was no appearance On behalf of respondent no.4, the matter was heard exparte by respondent no. 2. It accepted the view of LEO(C). The order of respondent no.2 is contained in annexure 5. After the order was passed, annexure 4 was issued by respondent no.1, requiring compliance of the order contained in Annexure-5. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that since respondent no. 2 decided the matter referred to it by respondent no.4 without any notice to the petitioner, the order contained in annexure 5 cannot be sustained. After the order was passed, annexure 4 was issued by respondent no.1, requiring compliance of the order contained in Annexure-5. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that since respondent no. 2 decided the matter referred to it by respondent no.4 without any notice to the petitioner, the order contained in annexure 5 cannot be sustained. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, inter alia, it was stated that as under rule 25(v) (a) of the Rules there is no provision for issuing any notice to the petitioner, it was not necessary for respondent no. 2 to issue such notice an. the order cannot be challenged on that ground. 4. From the perusal of the record including the annexures. it appears that both the Petitioner, the (the Contractor) and respondent no. 4 (the principal employer) denied that the workmen emp10yed by the petitioner were doing the same or similar kind of work as was being done by the workmen of respondent no. 4. The LEO (C) was of the opinion that the work done by the workmen the petitioner was of the same or similar kind to the workman of respondent no.4 and petitioner. Therefore, was bound to pay under the provisions of the Act, wages to its workmen at the rate of which respondent no. 4 was paying. In case of non-payment of the wages by the Contractor or of the unpaid balance due it was the duty of principal employer to pay the same and to recover it from the contractor. In this case respondent no. 4 being the principal employer it was its duty to see that the petitioner was paying the wages which were lawfully due to its workmen. 5. Respondent no. 4 by annexures 3 and 3/A made a prayer to respondent no. 2 to give a decision with regard to the dispute. In the reference made by respondent no. 4 to respondent no. 2, the petitioner was not made a party. Respondent no. 2 did not issue any notice to the petitioner. It, however, issued notice to the LEO (C) and respondent no 4 with regard to the hearing of the reference. Since respondent no. 4 did not appear inspite of service of notice respondent no. 2 gave its decision exparte agreeing with the view of tee LEO (C). 6. Respondent no. 2 did not issue any notice to the petitioner. It, however, issued notice to the LEO (C) and respondent no 4 with regard to the hearing of the reference. Since respondent no. 4 did not appear inspite of service of notice respondent no. 2 gave its decision exparte agreeing with the view of tee LEO (C). 6. The question that falls for consideration in this application is whether respondent no, 2 was bound to give notice to the petitioner about the reference made by respondent no.4, in view of the fact that in the event respondent no. 2 agreed with the view of the LEO(C), the petitioner would be required to pay wages to its workmen at a rate higher than what was being paid by it. According to the petitioner notice in the circumstances was required to be given and according to respondent no. 1 to 3 there being no such provision in toe Act, or the Rules no notice was required to be given. 7. We are concerned in this application with rule 25. That rule provides for forms and terms and conditions of licence. The relevant clause is rule 25(V) (8) which reads as follows:- "25. Forms and terms and conditions of licence. ………………… ……………….. (v) (a) in cases where the workmen employed by the contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment, the wages rates, holidays, hours or work and other conditions of service of the workmen of the contract or shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work; Provided that in the case of any disagreement with regard to the type of work the same Shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) whose decision shall be final. 8. Admittedly in this case there was disagreement with regard to the rate of wages which the petitioner was liable to pay alone who bas been vested with the jurisdiction to decide finally in case of such disagreement. The LEO(C) was of the opinion that the workmen of the petitioner was entitled to get wages at the rate at which respondent no.4 was paying to its workmen for transportation of ore. The petitioner did not comply with that order. The LEO(C) was of the opinion that the workmen of the petitioner was entitled to get wages at the rate at which respondent no.4 was paying to its workmen for transportation of ore. The petitioner did not comply with that order. Neither In the Act, nor In the Rules there is any provision which empowers the LEO (C) to give any final direction to either the contractor or the principal employer. That power has been vested with the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Naturally, therefore, respondent no. 4 made a reference under that provision to respondent no.2 Admittedly the petitioner was not a party in the reference so made. Admittedly respondent no.2 did not give any notice to the petitioner about that reference. Admittedly again in that clause, there is no provision for giving notice to the contractor in a reference made by the principal employer. 9. There is no doubt that it was not contracted by Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3, That the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) may hold in a reference made by the Principal employer that the workmen employed by the contractor are entitled to wages at the rate paid by the principal employer on the ground that the workmen of the contractor are doing the same or similar kind of work as the workmen of the principal employer and in that case the contractor shall be liable to comply with the order of the Chief Labour Commissioner, (Central). If such an order is passed it will adversely affect the contractor. It cannot now be disputed that although the statute may be silent with regard to giving notice to a person who may be adversely affected by an order passed by the authority having jurisdiction to pass such an order, it must be read in the statute that such provision exists. Reference may be mane to Smt. Moneka Gandhi Versus Union of India. That being the position, I am of the opinion that although rule 25(V) (a) is silent with regard to the service of notice on the contractor, in a situation with which we are dealing in this case, the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) is bound to give notice to the person who may be adversely affected by his order. No authority contrary to what I have held was brought to our notice. 10. No authority contrary to what I have held was brought to our notice. 10. In this case as already noticed above, by the order as contained in annexure 5 the petitioner has been saddled with a liability by the statutory authority without any notice to it That being the positioned, I hold that this order as contained in annexure 5 and the letter as contained in annexure 4 cannot be sustained. 11. It is the result, this application is allowed, and annexure 5 is quashed. Respondent no. 2 is directed to give notice to the parties including the petitioner and pass fresh order in accordance with law. As I have quashed annexure 5, annexure 4 is also quashed. There will be no order as to costs. I agree. Application allowed.