RAVI S. DHAVAN AND V. P. GOEL, JJ. This writ petition by Swadeshi Cotton Mills Limited challenges an order of the Addi tional Labour Commissioner, U. P. , Kanpur, in case No. 2987. Rashtrya Textile Sharam Sangthan v. National Textile Corporation, Kanpur, in the matter of five cotton mills of British India Corporation Limited. The order is appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. VB. Singhand Mr. Krishna Prasad, Standing Counsel. 3. The occasion for the Additional Labour Commissioner to consider and deliver his order arose after a direction on a writ Petition No 14168 of 1985 : Rashtriya Textile Sharam Sangthan v. State of U. P. and another, passed by the Supreme Court. This order is dated 29th October, 1986, An nexure T to the writ petition. By the order of the Supreme Court, the Additional Labour Commissioner, in effect, was under a direction to consider and hear the grievance of the workmen of the estab lishments concerned in the matter whether there was violation of payment of minimum wages and other relevant legislation of the government and there after take ap propriate action in accordance with law. 4. Thus, the Additional Labour Com missioner proceeded after hearing parties, i. e. , the employer and the workmenand delivered his order. In short, the Additional Labour Commissioner came to the con clusion that all the workmen of the estab lishment, five of them, must receive terms of equality in payment of wages. 5. Against the order of the Additional Labour Commissioner the petitioner, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Limited, one of the five establishments of the National Textile Corporation, has filed the present writ peti tion, in effect, resisting the plea that the workmen concerned are the workmen of the petitioner; that there is no liability to pay these workmen wages on terms of equality and that these are the workmen of the con tractor, namely, one Jakotia and Company. 6. In this regard it may be placed on record that the aforesaid, Jakotia and Com pany filed a writ petition before the High Court in 1986 which was dismissed in limine on 24 September, 1986. The same order of the Supreme Court was before the Court 10 years ago. 6. In this regard it may be placed on record that the aforesaid, Jakotia and Com pany filed a writ petition before the High Court in 1986 which was dismissed in limine on 24 September, 1986. The same order of the Supreme Court was before the Court 10 years ago. The Division Bench of which one of us was a member, declined to interfere in the matter regard being had to the order of the Supreme Court dated 29th October, 1985, aforesaid. While dismissing the peti tion, the observations of the High Court were that if the petitioner, Jakotia and Company, was aggrieved, it could approach the Labour Commissioner to ensure that all the directions given by the Supreme Court are complied with. Thus, with one inning of the matter over when the petition of Jakotia and Company was dismissed and the second on the petition of the workmen the Supreme Court desired that the Additional Labour Commissioner will consider the matter, this writ petition is, in effect, a third inning to reopen the matter. 7. The submissions before the Court are three: (a) that the Additional Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to ex amine the matter; (b) it is not the petitioner (Swadeshi Cotton Mills Limited) which has the primary liability to ensure payment of wages as may have been directed by the Additional Labour Commissioner and (c) the contractor was not made a party to the proceedings. 8. The Court will take up these matters one by one. 9. Insofar as the jurisdiction of the Ad ditional Labour Commissioner is con cerned. The argument is misconceived be cause the Additional Labour Commissioner was under a direction of the Supreme Court to examine the matter. Insofar as the responsibility of payment of wages is con cerned, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, makes it absolute ly clear that the obligations are on the prin cipal employer to ensure that the wages are paid. The workmen cannot go around on a locating spree to find their employer. If the law obliges the principal employer to ensure that minimum wages are paid, there is no escape from the obligation. Insofar as the matter of Jakotia and Company not being made a party to the proceedings is con cerned, the order of the High Court made it clear that if they had any difficulty, they may approach the Labour Commissioner. Insofar as the matter of Jakotia and Company not being made a party to the proceedings is con cerned, the order of the High Court made it clear that if they had any difficulty, they may approach the Labour Commissioner. Thus, they were not at any stage without notice of the proceedings against which they came to the High Court on a writ petition and were at every given stage conscious of the proceedings. 10. The balance of the issues which remain, are on who shall pay the wages and whether the workmen are entitled to receive wages in term of equality with every other workmen in the same establishment. The petitioner can hardly resist this proposition as this is an obligation in law. This is a matter between the petitioner and the con tractor to arrange for the payment of wages. Ultimately, the responsibility shall be of the principal employer as indicated in the Act, aforesaid. 11. This writ petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 12th October, 1987 is dis charged. Petition dismissed. .