JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. This instant writ petition is filed by Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited (hereinafter, referred to as 'HPCL', in short) a company incorporated under the Companies Act, of which, Nagaon Paper Mill is one of its units, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality of the letter dated 22nd of June, 2006, whereby and where under the General Manager, HPCL, was directed to provide similar wages, hours of work, holidays leave and other benefits to the persons employed under contractual basis or directly, performing similar nature of works like that of the regular employees of the HPCL, Nagaon Paper Mill, in particular, the Petitioner No. 2. 2. The aforesaid impugned letter, came to be issued on the basis of an enquiry report dated 11-4-2007, which is alleged to have been made without following the due procedure of enquiry and principles of natural justice. Challenge is also made to the impugned letter dated 22nd June, 2006, on the ground of return of the report back to the Labour Commissioner, the Respondent No. 2, herein, by the Respondent No. 3. 3. Altogether 225 (two hundred twenty five) numbers of contract labourers who claimed to be working in various fields of Nagaon Paper Mill, the Petitioner No. 2, approach this Court by filing W.P(c) No. 3878 of 1999 for the following: (i) For direction to the Respondent No. 4, therein, to act for abolition of contract labour under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970; (ii) For a direction to the Corporation to absorb the Petitioners; and (iii) To provide the Petitioners equal wages as paid to the regular employees. 4. The aforesaid writ petition was contested by the HPCL, by filing affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, it was contended that the Petitioners therein were engaged as contract labourers, but denied their status as regular employees who were continuously working in the corporation. It was further contended that engagement of contract labourers has now been prohibited in the mills and it is now governed by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and as per Section 10of the Act, the Petitioners could not have any grievance as contained in the writ petition. This Court after going through the materials on record passed the following order on 22nd of August, 2006: ... This Court after going through the materials on record passed the following order on 22nd of August, 2006: ... So far the Petitioners are concerned, we direct the Labour Department of the Government of Assam to examine the question whether the Petitioners are performing the same nature of job and whether under the relevant rules and guidelines, they are entitled to equal wages as being paid to the regular employees. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of this order. 5. Pursuant to the order as indicated above, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Assam vide his letter L.R. No. 29/2006/12, 466-68 dated 17th of November 2006 intimated the General Manager, Nagaon Paper Mill of his intention of holding an enquiry in the mill premises and requested the General Manager, Nagaon Paper Mill to make his presence available in the enquiry with statements showing the nature of employment as well as relevant records/registers for examination. On 27-12-2006 and 17-02-2007, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Assam conducted an enquiry in the Nagaon Paper Mill, the copy of which was, however, not supplied/provided to the Petitioners herein. Thereafter, the Additional Labour Commissioner, Assam, vide his letter No. L.R. 29/2006/4067-69, dated 03-04-2007, informed the General Manager, HPCL, that he would conduct an enquiry in the Nagaon Paper Mill Premises on 06-0402007 at about 10:30 am, along with Sri D. K. Das, Deputy Labour Commissioner (HQ), Assam and requested him (GM) and others to make their presence available at the enquiry along with relevant documents, registers, etc., for examination. On 06-04-2007 enquiry was jointly conducted by Sri. S. S. Hojai, Additional Labour Commissioner, Assam, and Sri D. K. Das, Deputy Labour Commissioner (HQ), Assam, and forwarded the findings of the enquiry to the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Assam, Labour and Employment Department, Dispur Assam. Findings were also communicated to the Petitioners. After receipt of the enquiry report dated 11-4-2007, the Petitioner filed objection before the Respondent No. 2, on 28-06-2007 contending inter alia, therein that the enquiry report submitted by the Additional Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner cannot be acted upon. The management also prayed for a denovo enquiry affording reasonable opportunity to the management to plead their case with regard to the issue(s) involved therein. The management also prayed for a denovo enquiry affording reasonable opportunity to the management to plead their case with regard to the issue(s) involved therein. However, despite filing of objection, the Respondent No. 2 in most unreasonable fashion, on the basis of the enquiry report, issued the impugned letter, directing the General Manager, HPCL, to provide similar wages, hours of work, holidays, leave and other benefits to both contractual and direct employees, performing similar nature of works and to submit a compliance report. 6. Being aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed by the Petitioners, challenging the legality and propriety of the letter dated 22nd June, 2006. 7. This writ petition is resisted by the Respondents by filing a counter affidavit, wherein, it has been contended that the enquiry was conducted by the Additional Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner, pursuant to the directions given by this Court vide order dated 22-08-2006, passed in W.P(C) No. 3878 of 1999 and the enquiry conducted within the mill premises by the above 2(two) officers of the Labour Department, cannot be found with fault since the report was prepared after examination of the persons involved and interested. 8. We have heard Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Roy and Mr. R. B. Deka, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. We have also heard Mr. A. K. Dasgupta, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6 and 7. Also heard Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel, for the Respondents. 9. The primary issue involved in this writ petition is whether the enquiry report jointly prepared by the Addl. Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 11-04-2007, can be accepted and on the basis of the same a direction can be issued to the General Manager, HPCL, to provide similar wages, hours of work, holidays, leave and other benefits as enjoyed by the regular employees to the contractual labourers engaged in the HPCL on and from 1985. 10. Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel at the very outset of her arguments contended strenuously that the enquiry report dated 11-04-2007 cannot be accepted and given effect to since the enquiry was conducted by the officers of the Labour Department in limited departments of the Nagaon Paper Mill only. 10. Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel at the very outset of her arguments contended strenuously that the enquiry report dated 11-04-2007 cannot be accepted and given effect to since the enquiry was conducted by the officers of the Labour Department in limited departments of the Nagaon Paper Mill only. It is submitted by her that the officers of the Labour Department visited only 9(nine) departments of the paper mill, where there are more than 40(forty) departments and examined some of the contract labourers and regular employees of those 9(nine) departments. The officers of the Labour Department though indicated in the report visit of 11(eleven) departments virtually visited 9(nine) departments only and did not care to visit all departments. Therefore, evidence of those limited witnesses cannot represent the views of each and every contract labourer and therefore, cannot say and hold that contract labourers are also discharging similar nature of duties/works as performed by the regular employees of the mill. The officers of the Labour Department did not visit all the departments of the Nagaon Paper Mill so as to gather a complete picture of the nature of duties performed by the contract labourers to that of the regular employees of the HPCL. Referring to Annexure-5, the enquiry report it is submitted by Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel that though 11(eleven) departments are indicated therein, the officers of the Labour Department visited only 9(nine) departments. Thereafter, the officers of the labour Department did not examine all the employees of the departments of the Nagaon Paper Mill, who were engaged on contract basis and working from 1985. From the report (Annexure-5) it is found that the officers of the Labour Department examined some of the contract labourers and regular employees. Some of the statements of those contract labourers and regular employees, who are shown to have been examined during the enquiry, may be provided as under: Sri Sridhar Saikia, appears to be a co-operative worker at the Finishing House of Nagaon Paper Mill. In the Department, there are 12(twelve) numbers of regular employees, while 26(twenty-six) numbers were engaged on contractual basis. This worker stated in his evidence that he is working as an unskilled worker at cutter machine in Finishing House for the last 22 years. He used to work like loading the finishing products meat for cutting and taking out the same, under the operator. This worker stated in his evidence that he is working as an unskilled worker at cutter machine in Finishing House for the last 22 years. He used to work like loading the finishing products meat for cutting and taking out the same, under the operator. He also stated that he also does the shifting work in the Finishing House. One Dhaneswar Deka of the Laboratory Department, while examined by the officers of the Labour Department, also stated that he performs the duty of collection of samples from other departments and submits the same in the Central Laboratory. He also stated that he also performs works like consistency determination, sheet making and cleaning work at the laboratory. Another person, namely Sri Ashotosh Sarkar, an employee in the Department of Laboratory, also stated, during the enquiry, that he is assigned with the job of collection of samples from various departments and submit the same to the Laboratory. He also stated that he also cleans the Laboratory and also does sheet-making work. This witness stated that he also performs the works which are being performed by the regular employees of the HPCL. 11. Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel taking into consideration all these statements of the witnesses, recorded by the officers of the Labour Department, basing on which, the enquiry report was prepared, submitted that the evidence of these witnesses do not and cannot reflect that the regular labourers and contractually engaged labourers are performing similar nature of duties/works. It was submitted by her that unless some acceptable evidence forthcoming from their mouth that the workers in both the categories are performing similar nature of works/Jobs, the report prepared by the officers, basing on the statements of the limited witnesses cannot be accepted and acted upon. Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel, submitted that the letter issued to the General Manager, directing him to provide similar facilities to the contractual employees as provided to the regular employees cannot be accepted and acted upon. 12. On the contrary, Mr. A. K. Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, submitted that the officers of the Labour Department, pursuant to the direction of this Court, conducted the enquiry and during enquiry, the officers examined some of the employees under both the category. 12. On the contrary, Mr. A. K. Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, submitted that the officers of the Labour Department, pursuant to the direction of this Court, conducted the enquiry and during enquiry, the officers examined some of the employees under both the category. The workers/labourers who were examined by the officers of the Labour Department gave categorical statements that the contract labourers are also performing similar nature of jobs/works to that of the regular employees of the HPCL. Therefore, as argued, the statements of the witnesses cannot be sidetracked holding it that they are not stating anything in regard to the duties performed by the contract labourers similar to the duties/jobs performed by the regular employees of the HPCL. The report submitted by the officers of the Labour Department, therefore, cannot be assailed on the ground that the evidence of the witnesses are silent in respect of the nature of performance of the duties by the categories of employees of the mill. 13. Mrs. M. Hazarika learned Sr. counsel in support of her contention further argued that in order to ascertain the factum of performance of similar nature of works/jobs to that of the regular employees by the contract labourers who are working since 1985, the officers who conducted the enquiry did not visit each and every Department of the mill to have their say in the context of performance of their duties in the mill and to satisfy themselves (the officers). The visit of the officers of the Labour Department to some of the Departments of the paper mill and examination of some of the contract and regular labourers of some departments of the mill indicated in the report would not reflect the issue in conflict and make the enquiry report acceptable since other contract labourers discharging their duties in the other departments are left out from being examined. It was, therefore, argued by Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel that the other contract labourers who were working in different departments of the mill were never given opportunity to place their say in respect of the nature of duties/works performed by them in the mill. It was, therefore, argued by Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel that the other contract labourers who were working in different departments of the mill were never given opportunity to place their say in respect of the nature of duties/works performed by them in the mill. It was submitted by her that there is violation of the principles of natural justice since no opportunity was given to the rest of the contract labourers and other employees of the mill to have their say in the context of the performance of duties by the contract labourers as well as the regular employees in the mill. Mrs. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel in support of her contention relied in the decisions reported in (i) 1985 (3) SCC 378 (Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and Ors.); (ii) 2000 (1) SCC 416 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, though its Registrar v. Shashikant S. Patil and Anr.); and (iii) 1969 (1) SCC 308 (The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and Ors.). Mrs. Hazarika, therefore, under the facts and the law urged this Court to reject the enquiry report dated 11-04-2007, prepared jointly by the Additional Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner and to issue a further direction to the Labour Department to make a fresh enquiry in regard to the performance of duties by the contract employees as well as regular employees of the mill and the nature of duties performed by each category. 14. Having gone through the statements of the witnesses, so recorded, it appears to this Court that the statement do not reflect that the contract labourers are also performing the similar nature of works/jobs to that of the regular employees of the HPCL. The statements of some of the labourers/employees who are performing their duties in the paper mill cannot wholly reflect that they (contract labourers) are also performing same nature of duties/jobs with that of the regular employees. The enquiry report submitted basing on those statements does not appear to be based on facts and thus render unacceptable. 15. Mr. A.K. Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. The enquiry report submitted basing on those statements does not appear to be based on facts and thus render unacceptable. 15. Mr. A.K. Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 while resisting this petition submitted that while making a judicial review by a writ Court in respect of a decision, it cannot sit in appeal looking into every pros and cons of the decision rather it must confine to the manner in which the decision was made. The officers of the Labour Department while making an enquiry per direction of this Court recorded statements of some of the contract labourers and regular employees as well and came to a decision that the contract labourers of the Mill employed on and from 1985 are also performing similar work/duties/jobs to that of the regular employees of the Mill and therefore, contract labourers are entitled similar benefits, wages being provided to the regular employees. Therefore, the decision, cannot be reviewed by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the decision making process would be under judicial review. It was argued that neither the decision arrived at by the department nor the enquiry conducted jointly by the officers of the Labour Department can be put under challenge in the guise of judicial review. Mr. A. K. Dasgupta while supporting his contention placed reliance in the decision of the case between Tata Cellular v. Union of India; reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 . [Emphasis added in paras 72,73,74,75,76 and 77] 16. The writ Petitioners herein are not challenging the decision arrived at by the Department of Labour but they are aggrieved with the manner in which the decision was made. From the enquiry it appears that the officers of the Labour Department did not visit all the Departments of the mill and examine the contract labourers and others working in each and every department. It appears that the decision arrived at is the result of the enquiry not conducted properly that too in breach of the rules of natural justice. 17. Taking note of the facts and circumstances appearing in this case, the impugned letter dated 22-06-2007, is hereby set aside and quashed. The Respondent Nos. It appears that the decision arrived at is the result of the enquiry not conducted properly that too in breach of the rules of natural justice. 17. Taking note of the facts and circumstances appearing in this case, the impugned letter dated 22-06-2007, is hereby set aside and quashed. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are directed to examine whether the contract labourers of the HPCL, Nagaon Paper Mill, in particular, are also performing the same nature of jobs/works/duties to that of the regular employees of the mill and whether under the relevant rules and guidelines, they are entitled to equal wages and other benefits as being provided to regular employees. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and orders. 18. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.