JUDGMENT : Satish Kumar Mittal, J. This order shall dispose of four writ petitions, bearing CWP Nos. 10331, 8492, 8493 of 1997 and 15401 of 2000. CWP No. 10331 of 1997 has been filed by the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Haryana and the District Manager of its District Office, Kurukshetra, challenging the order dated 2.1.1997 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) (respondent No. 2 herein), whereby it was held that the workmen (herein after referred to as 'the contract workmen'), who were employed through contractor were performing the same or similar work as was being performed by the watchmen directly employed by the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the FCI'), who is the principal employer, therefore, they were entitled to same wages, as were being given to regular directly employed watchmen by the principal employer. 2. CWP Nos. 8492, 8493 of 1997 and 15401 of 2000 have been filed by the workmen seeking direction to the FCI to implement the order dated 2.1.1997. 3. The contract workmen were engaged by the FCI through contractor as Security Guards at various godowns, maintained by the FCI in the State of Haryana. They were being paid at D.C. rates. Feeling aggrieved that though they were performing same duties and functions, as was being performed by the regular directly employed watchmen, they were being paid less wages, the contract workmen filed two separate writ petitions, i.e. CWP Nos. 1480 and 3886 of 1995, before this court, wherein they claimed that in view of Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), they were entitled for the same wages as paid to a regular employee by the principal employer. A preliminary objection was raised by the FCI that the contract workmen had not exhausted the alternative remedy, available to them, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and that the question as to whether the contract workmen were performing same and similar duties and functions, as was being performed by the watchmen directly employed by the principal employer, is a question of fact, which could not have been gone into in the writ jurisdiction. Vide order dated 22.7.1996 (Annexure P-1), those writ petitions were disposed of both the writ petitions, with a direction to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) to consider and decide the applications of the contract workmen in terms of Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) of the Rules, within a stipulated time. It was further ordered that in case, the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) comes to the conclusion that the contract workmen were performing the same or similar kind of work as was being performed by the workmen directly employed by the principal employer, they shall be entitled to the same wages and other benefits. 4. In pursuance of the said order, the contract workmen filed applications before the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), claiming equal wages and benefits, as being paid to the regular watchmen directly employed by the principal employer. The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), after taking reply to the said application from the FCI and providing opportunity to lead evidence and after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 2.1.1997, allowed the said applications and held that the contract workmen employed through contractor were performing the same duties and functions, as were being performed by the Watch and Ward Staff, regularly/directly employed by the FCI, therefore, they were held entitled for the same wages and benefits, as were being enjoyed by the regular directly employed watchmen by the principal employer. 5. The FCI has challenged the said order by filing CWP No. 10331 of 1997, and the other three writ petitions, i.e. CWP Nos. 8492, 8493 of 1997 and 15401 of 2000, have been filed by the contract workmen to direct the FCI to implement the said order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order, passed by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). 7. Learned counsel for the FCI argued that the finding recorded by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) that the contract workmen were performing same duties, as were being performed by the watchmen directly employed by the principal employer, is wrong, as there are basic and fundamental differences between the duties and jobs of Security Guards, who are recruited by the contractor, and the permanent staff of Watchmen, who are employed by the FCI. While referring to a comparative chart showing the duties of two different category of employees, it was argued that the duties performed by the contract workmen are not similar to the duties being performed by the regular directly employed Watchmen by the FCI. It was further argued that the qualifications prescribed for the regular employees are different than the Security Guards employed through contract. There is a difference of control and supervision of the Security Guards employed in these two categories. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contract workmen argued that each and every aspect with regard to both the category of employees, their qualification, training and supervision have been duly considered by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). Even he visited various places, where these workmen were working. After considering all the material, the aforesaid findings were rightly recorded by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). 9. A perusal of the impugned order, passed by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) reveals that each and every evidence led and the argument raised by the FCI, was duly considered. The statements of various workers were recorded. The place of working was personally visited by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). After considering all these aspects, he recorded a finding of fact that the contract workmen were performing same and similar work, as was being performed by the regular Watchmen directly employed by the FCI, therefore, they were entitled to the same wages and benefits. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact. 10. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the FCI, while referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Labour and Others, (1996) 6 AD 747 and a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Chand Chhap Fertilizer and Chemicals Limited (Formerly known as ICI India Limited) Vs. Labour Commissioner, Fertilizer Workers Union, Chhotey Lal and Jagdish Kumar, (2006) 3 AWC 2254 , argued that Rule 25 of the Rules imposes certain conditions on the contractor, while granting him a licence under the Rules. If any of such conditions is violated, the workman can enforce that condition against the contractor, but the workman cannot make the principal employer liable to comply with the said condition. If any of such conditions is violated, the workman can enforce that condition against the contractor, but the workman cannot make the principal employer liable to comply with the said condition. Learned counsel argued that one of such conditions is that the contractor shall pay to the contract workmen in his employment, wages, which are being paid by the principal employer to the employees, directly employed, if they are performing same and similar kind of work. In case the contractor is not complying with the said condition, the principal employer, who is FCI in the present case, cannot be held liable to pay wages to the contract workmen. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the FCI and gone through Rule 25 of the Rules, Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the aforesaid judgments. As per Section 2 (1) (h) of the Act, the word “Wages” has been assigned the same meaning, as assigned to the term “Wages” in clause (vi) of Section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which reads as under: “wages” means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances, or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes - (a) any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court; (b) x x x (c) x x x (d) x x x (e) x x x As per Section 2 (vi) (a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the term “wages” includes any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court. 12. Now, the question to be considered is that in term of Section 21(4) of the Act, if the contractor is not paying the wages, as being paid by the principal employer to the regular directly employed workmen, whether the principal employer can be held liable to pay the said amount. Section 21 of the Act lays down the responsibility for payment of wages to the contract worker. Section 21 of the Act lays down the responsibility for payment of wages to the contract worker. It provides as follows: (21) Responsibility for payment of wages - (1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed. (2) Every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorised by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorized representative of the principal employer. (4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor. Sub section (4) of the aforesaid provision clearly provides that the liability for payment of wages to each employee engaged by a contractor as contract labour is of the contractor, but in case the contractor fails to make payment of wages, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour and in turn, the principal employer is entitled to recover the same from the contractor. The object of this provision is that the contractor labour must get his wages and in case, the contractor does not pay the same, then the contract labour can recover the same from the principal employer. 13. Learned counsel for the FCI argued that sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act does not deal with, nor does it cover the obligations which are imposed upon a contractor under the provision of Rule 25 of the Rules. 13. Learned counsel for the FCI argued that sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act does not deal with, nor does it cover the obligations which are imposed upon a contractor under the provision of Rule 25 of the Rules. This sub-section will not apply to such obligations of the contractor which may be the subject matter of dispute between the contractor and his workers at the time of disbursement of wages as such claim does not fall within the definition of “wages” under the Act. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted, because in the present case, on the direction issued by this Court in CWP Nos. 1480 and 3886 of 1995, the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), on an application filed by the contract workmen, adjudicated the matter and recorded a finding of fact that they were performing the same or similar work as was being performed by the regular directly employed watchmen by the FCI, and were entitled for the same wages and benefits. The said order entitles the contract workmen to claim same wages, as being paid to the regular Watchmen employed by the FCI. Clause 2 (vi) (a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 provides that 'any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court' shall be included in the definition of “wages”. By virtue of the aforesaid clause, in view of the order of the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), the claim of same wages has become part of wages. Thus, in my opinion, the contract labour is entitled to recover the said claim u/s 21 (4) of the Act from the principal employer, being unpaid balance of wages, if same is not being paid by the contractor. Even in Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. 's case (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:- In view of Section 2 (1) (h) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 read with Section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the term 'wages' for the purpose of Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, means contractual wages which are payable under the terms of employment as between the contractor who is the employer and the contract labourers who are his employees. 'Wages' would also include, inter alia, any remuneration which the contractor is required to pay under any award or settlement between the parties or under an order of the court. If the contractor does not pay these wages to his workmen engaged by him as contract labourers, then under sub-section (4) of Section 21 the principal employer becomes liable to make good the difference and recover this amount which the principal employer has paid to the workmen of the contractor, from the contractor. However, in para 14 of the said judgment, it was held that Section 21 (4) has no application to a situation where a contractor may have paid the wages but has not complied with the condition imposed by Rule 25 (v) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971. The definition of 'wages' u/s 2 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 read with the definition of 'wages' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, does not cover any additional amount found payable under Rule 25 (v) (a). 14. But that is not the situation here. In the present case, vide order dated 2.1.1997 (Annexure P-9), the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) has found that the workmen were performing the same and similar work as was being performed by the watchmen directly employed by the FCI, therefore, they are entitled for the same wages. The said order falls under clause (a) of Section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which provides that “wages” includes any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the FCI is not liable to pay the said amount under sub-Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act is not tenable. 15. In Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Calcutta Vs. Tulsi Das Bauri and others, AIR 1997 SC 2446 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, in case the contractor fails to make payment of wages to the contract labour, the principal employer is liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to them. This liability of the principal employer is statutory one, and in case, the contractor commits default in payment of wages, the principal employer has been made responsible for due payment and in case, such payment is made, he is entitled to recover it from the contractor by deducting the same from the amount payable to him. A similar petition filed by the FCI, i.e. C.W.P. No. 1858 of 2008, titled as Food Corporation of India v. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and others, was dismissed by this Court on 3.2.2009. In that case also, the similar order was passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh, in case of similarly situated employees of the FCI, who were engaged for loading and unloading of food grains. This Court dismissed the said writ petition, while observing as under: A perusal of this Rule would clearly show that in cases where the workmen were employed by the Contractor and performed the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment, the wage rates, apart from other conditions of service of the workmen of the Contractor, 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. It is not in dispute that the work performed by these 41 workmen was the same and there was no distinguishing factor with regard to their nature of work in comparison to the 105 workmen who had been brought under the Direct Payment System on 6.9.1997 with effect from 1.4.1997. That being the factual position and in the light of Rule 25(2) reproduced herein-above, the workmen have been rightly granted the benefit by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 27.12.2007 (Annexure P-3). That being the factual position and in the light of Rule 25(2) reproduced herein-above, the workmen have been rightly granted the benefit by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 27.12.2007 (Annexure P-3). The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the liability would be of the Contractor and not of the F.C.I., may be correct as far as his assertion with regard to his claim against respondent No. 2 is concerned but nevertheless as per provisions contained in Section 21 (4) of the Act, the liability would be of the principal employer to make payment of wages in full or unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the Contractor and thereafter recover the amount so paid from the Contractor either by taking any amount payable by the Contractor either under contract or as debt payable by the Contractor. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition (CWP No. 10331 of 1997) filed by the FCI and the same is, hereby, dismissed. So far as the writ petitions (CWP Nos. 8492, 8493 of 1997 and 15401 of 2000) filed by the contract workers are concerned, it has already been ordered by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) that they are entitled to the same wages and other benefits, as are being given to regular directly employed Watchmen by the principal employer and they can enforce the said order in accordance with law. In case, the contractor does not pay the said amount, it will be open for them to have recourse to Section 21 (4) of the Act. In view of this legal position, the writ petitions (CWP Nos. 8492, 8493 of 1997 and 15401 of 2000) filed by the workers are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to enforce their right in accordance with law before the competent authority.