Judgment Mohinder Pal, J. 1. This L.P.A. No. 65 of 2013 challenges judgment and order dated 3-9-2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Spl. C.A. No. 9036 of 1998 and cognate matters by which the learned Single Judge has confirmed order dated 29-5-1998 passed by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) ('the C.L.C. for short) in a dispute arising under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Rules, 1971 (for short, "the Rules") framed under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, "the Act"). In this matter, there are three categories of contract labourers, viz. Non-statutory snacks canteen, (2) malis and (3) sweepers. Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that, on 1-3-1994 respondent No. 2 made a complaint before Assistant Labour Commissioner that concerned contractor had committed breach of licence conditions. On this complaint, the matter was referred to the C.L.C. The C.L.C. vide his order dated 17-4-1996 passed under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules gave finding that employees of contractors were not discharging the same or similar nature of work, and therefore, there was no violation of Clause (v) of the licence. This order of C.L.C. was carried before this Court in a writ petition being Spl. C.A. No. 5063 of 1996, wherein order dated 17-4-1996 passed by the C.L.C. was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the concerned C.L.C. for re-examination. There was specific direction in the order passed by this Court that the statutory authority must consider the matter in light of the provisions of Arts. 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46of the Constitution of India. It will be relevant to mention here that despite this direction and mandate of requirement of Art. 14 etc., the C.L.C. passed order dated 29-5-1998 by holding that Arts. 14 etc. of the Constitution were not required to be looked into in this case. This order of C.L.C. was questioned before this Court by the principal employer/Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in writ petition being Spl. C.A. No. 9036 of 1998. Apart from this writ petition by the Principal Employer (hereinafter "P.E."), various contractors also preferred Special Civil Applications, viz. Gambhir Catering Services Spl. C.A. No. 9023 of 1998, Garden Design Centre Spl. C.A. No. 9020 of 1998, Vidya Constructions Spl. C.A. No. 9032 of 1998 and Hetal Gardening Services Spl. C.A. No. 9036 of 1998. Apart from this writ petition by the Principal Employer (hereinafter "P.E."), various contractors also preferred Special Civil Applications, viz. Gambhir Catering Services Spl. C.A. No. 9023 of 1998, Garden Design Centre Spl. C.A. No. 9020 of 1998, Vidya Constructions Spl. C.A. No. 9032 of 1998 and Hetal Gardening Services Spl. C.A. No. 3346 of 2001, seeking appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside impugned order dated 29-5-1998 passed by the C.L.C. in inquiry under Rule 25(2)(v)(c) of the Rules. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner of Spl. C.A. No. 9036 of 1998 is the principal employer and rest of me petitioners are contractors who were granted labour contracts in various departments of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Gujarat Refineries, Vadodara. 2. Initially, before the C.L.C., Labour Union set up a case that the nature of work done by workers recruited by contractors was the same or similar to that of me regular employees appointed by P.E. Though the nature of job and duty performed by both the sets of employees was same or similar, workers of me contractors were paid wages at a different rate lower than that of the employees of the P.E. 3. On the other hand, present appellant - I.O.C. resisted the application made by the Labour Union on various grounds. It was submitted that duly qualified and trained employees were being appointed by the department. These appointments are made by the appointing authority after they are selected by following the selection procedure on the basis of eligibility and advertisement by the selection Board. The employees engaged by the contractors were paid wages at the rate declared by the Labour Department which cannot be compared with the employees of the P.E. who were professionally qualified and fully competent for the job for which they were selected. It was further their case that employees of both the categories, i.e. contractor and P.E., were not entitled to the same wages and facilities as their qualification, selection procedure, nature of job, element of skill and responsibilities were different. C.L.C., however, was not persuaded by the reply submitted by the P.E. and came to a conclusion that work done by both the employees was 'same' or 'similar' and they were entitled to same wages. He raised a specific issue that while considering 'similarity of work', Arts. C.L.C., however, was not persuaded by the reply submitted by the P.E. and came to a conclusion that work done by both the employees was 'same' or 'similar' and they were entitled to same wages. He raised a specific issue that while considering 'similarity of work', Arts. 14, 16 and 39 of the Constitution were not required to be examined. As noted above, in an earlier round of litigation, this Court had clearly directed the authority to re-determine the issue in light of the constitutional provisions. However, the C.L.C. found that the work performed by the employees of P.E. in statutory canteen and by 'malis' and sweepers employed by the P.E. were same and similar. It appears that decision of the authority under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) was essentially 'declaratory in nature'. However, the authority went beyond its jurisdiction and found that the concerned workmen of the contractors were entitled to lowest of the scale with effect from 1-1-1996. 4. Learned Single Judge in its decision examined the impugned order from the angle whether the C.L.C. was required to take into consideration various circumstances, i.e. recruitment of employees, qualification, age, job description, nature of duties, Code of conduct, place of work, degree of skill, application of mind, responsibility, accountability, reliability, volume of work, length of service etc. as contended by the opposite side. Therefore, the short question which was posed for consideration of the learned Single Judge was, "while holding inquiry under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules and while considering the dispute whether workmen employed by the contractor were performing the same or similar kind of work as done by the workmen directly employed by the P.E." The wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor should be same as applicable to the workmen directly employed by the P.E. on an establishment doing same or similar kind of work. Whether the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' can be invoked and/or whether the criteria which are required to be considered while deciding the matter under 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable or not. Whether the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' can be invoked and/or whether the criteria which are required to be considered while deciding the matter under 'equal pay for equal work' would be applicable or not. The learned Single Judge ultimately reached to the conclusion that employees of contractor were performing the same or similar duties as that of the employees of the P.E. Therefore, the employees engaged by the contractor would be entitled to the same wages as were being paid to the employees of the P.E. 5. Aggrieved from this order of learned Single Judge, the P.E. has preferred the present L.P.A., which has come up for consideration before the Division Bench. 6. The Court has heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.P. Bhatt with learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish R. Bhatt for Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt for the appellant and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by Ms. Vidhi Bhatt and learned Advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa for the Employee Unions. 7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt for the appellant has submitted that the decision of C.L.C. was not only against law but was also against the evidence on record. According to him, the C.L.C. had raised a specific issue at Page 78 as to whether while considering equality, consideration of Arts. 14, 16 and 39(D) is required to be examined. However, he has totally given a go-bye to the provisions contained in the Constitution of India while deciding such or similar duties by both the sets of workmen. It is further argued that the C.L.C. has not taken into consideration the evidence brought on record by the parties. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the learned Single Judge has also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that authorities under the Constitution stand on a different footing and the C.L.C. under the statute was required to only examine broadly those similarities but was not required to take into consideration the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. There was a patent error of law which has been committed in the impugned order. The C.L.C. was required to hold an inquiry and pass appropriate order under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules considering the observations made by the learned Single Judge in his judgment and order passed in Spl. C.A. No. 5063 of 1998. There was a patent error of law which has been committed in the impugned order. The C.L.C. was required to hold an inquiry and pass appropriate order under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules considering the observations made by the learned Single Judge in his judgment and order passed in Spl. C.A. No. 5063 of 1998. Despite this, in Paras 7.7 and 7.8 the Court found that the decisions by the High Court and the Supreme Court relied upon by the appellant-I.O.C. shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the same are concerning the dispute with regard to equal pay for equal work. 9. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt further argued that after present controversy, workmen of the contractors made a complaint through other Union called 'Annapurna Dukan Kamdar Sangh', Vadodara against the very same contractor namely M/s. Gambhir Catering Service, i.e. the contractor against whom original complaint has been filed. The authority, viz. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), exercising powers under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules examined in great detail the difference between the two categories of workmen, one employed by the P.E. and the other employed by the contractors. On detailed analysis of facts and application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, the authority clearly came to a conclusion that there was qualitative difference between the responsibilities of the two sets of workmen, as regularly employed workmen possess higher qualification than that of the workmen employed by the contractor. Different treatment to the persons belonging to the same class on the basis of intelligible criteria is permissible. It is submitted that, after discussing the evidence, the pronouncements made by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the authority, i.e. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Centre), arrived at a conclusion that there was no similarity in respect of the work between the two sets of workmen. It is submitted that this order was contrary to the order in question passed by the C.L.C. which was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. However, the same has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while deciding the Special Civil Application. 10. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel Mr. It is submitted that this order was contrary to the order in question passed by the C.L.C. which was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. However, the same has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while deciding the Special Civil Application. 10. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhatt relied upon the following various judgments: "(1) Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board v. Uttar Pradesh Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh, reported in 2009 (17) SCC 318 (2) Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, 2008 (10) SCC 1 (3) Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v. Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd., 2007 (7) SCC 710 (4) Deb Narayan Shyam v. State of W.B., reported in 2005 (2) SCC 286 (5) State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, reported in AIR 2006 SC 161 (6) State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu, reported in 2003 (1) SCC 250 (7) State of Orissa v. Upal Krishna Redy, reported in 2003 (1) SCC 258 (8) State of Karnataka v. K.G.S.D. Canteen Employees Welfare Association, reported in 2006 (1) SCC 567 (9) Chand Chhap Fertilizer & Chemicals Ltd. v. Labour Commissioner (U.P.), Kanpur, in C.M.W.P. No. 29381 of 1994 dated 18-1-2006 (reported in 2006 (2) LLJ 1100 ) (10) Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. v. Commissioner of Labour, reported in 1996 (10) SCC 599 (11) M/s. Mackinnon Machenzine & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D' Costa, reported in 1987 (2) SCC 469 " 11. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta and Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. Labour Unions, have submitted that it will be wrong to say that the principle of equal pay for equal work as applicable in service matters arising from invocation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India can be injected in an adjudication under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules. It is submitted that Rule 25(2)(v)(a) does not use the words 'equal pay for equal work' at all. Rather, the words used are 'same or similar kind of work'. Therefore, in an adjudication/inquiry under this Rule, the only aspect required to be seen or determined is whether the workmen of the contractor performed the same or similar kind of work as the workmen of the principal employer. Nothing more or nothing less was required to be seen by the C.L.C. while deciding the dispute referred to him. Therefore, in an adjudication/inquiry under this Rule, the only aspect required to be seen or determined is whether the workmen of the contractor performed the same or similar kind of work as the workmen of the principal employer. Nothing more or nothing less was required to be seen by the C.L.C. while deciding the dispute referred to him. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation, viz. Spl. C.A. No. 5063 of 1996, does not say that the C.L.C. was to decide the claim of the direct labourer in the categories of canteen vendors, 'malis' and sweepers by applying the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'. According to him, comparison of attributes like recruitment process, mode of selection, educational qualifications and experience was not to be done in an adjudication under Rule 25(2)(v)(a), because there is bound to be dissimilarity between contract labourers and workmen employed by the principal employer insofar as these attributes are concerned. The only thing to be seen was whether the contract labourers performed the same or similar kind of work as that performed by the workmen employed by the principal employer. 12. It is further submitted by me learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the C.L.C. is only a fact-finder in an inquiry/adjudication under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules. In the present case, the order of C.L.C. cannot be scrutinised further as he was alive to me controversy between the parties and has discussed me oral and documentary evidence and has also taken into consideration the oral and written arguments advanced by both the sides. Finally, it has been submitted that very limited interference was warranted at the stage of L.P.A. as the C.L.C. was the primary finder in this case and the learned Single Judge while exercising secondary review of the primary view taken by the C.L.C. has affirmed the findings and conclusions of the C.L.C. The L.P.A. Court being the Court of appeal was required to interfere only when it reaches to the conclusion that the view taken by the C.L.C. was an impossible view. As nothing of this sort has come on record, the decision of C.L.C. as well as the learned Single Judge were required to be affirmed and upheld. 13. The learned Counsel for respondent Nos. As nothing of this sort has come on record, the decision of C.L.C. as well as the learned Single Judge were required to be affirmed and upheld. 13. The learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also referred to the judgment in Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board v. Uttar Pradesh Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh (supra) and submitted that this judgment does not render C.L.C.'s order to be bad as the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not hold that qualification or mode of selection was determinative in an adjudication under Ruled 25(2)(v)(a). He has also referred to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Para 10 and 11 of the said decision, which is reproduced as under: "10. It would be, thus, seen that Rule 25(2)(v)(a) incorporates the principal of 'equal pay for equal work'. By statutory provision, it is mandated that the employees engaged by the employer through contractor who perform the same or similar kind of work must be paid the same wages and facilities as being paid to the employees employed directly by the principal employer of the establishment. In case of any controversy as to whether the workmen employed by the contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as employed directly by the principal employer of the establishment, the Labour Commissioner has been empowered to resolve such dispute. 11. Nature of work, duties and responsibilities attached thereto are relevant in comparing and evaluating as to whether the workmen employed through contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer. Degree of skill and various dimensions of a given job have to be gone into to reach a conclusion that nature of duties of the staff in two categories are on par or otherwise. Often the difference may be of a degree. It is well settled that nature of work cannot be judged by mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility...." 14. Thus, from the above, it is clear that there is no reference made either to qualification or mode of recruitment. According to the learned Senior Counsel Mr. It is well settled that nature of work cannot be judged by mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility...." 14. Thus, from the above, it is clear that there is no reference made either to qualification or mode of recruitment. According to the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta, the nature of work, duties and responsibilities, degree of skill and various dimensions of a given job are to be seen while comparing and evaluating as to whether the workmen employed through contractor performed the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer. As the Indian Oil Corporation's entire case is based on difference in qualifications and mode of recruitment of two groups, this ruling of the Supreme Court does not advance Indian Oil Corporation's case. 15. The Court heard rival submissions. Main controversy in this case revolves around Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules, which is reproduced hereunder: "Rule 25(2)(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 wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workman directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work." This rule further provides that in case of any dispute with regard to type of work, the Labour Commissioner, i.e. C.L.C., shall decide the same and his decision shall be final. 16. Thus, it would be seen that the above-mentioned rule incorporates the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It has mandated that employees engaged by the principal employer through contractor who performs the same or similar kind of work must be paid the same wages and facilities as are being paid to the employees employed directly by the principal employer of the establishment. Thus, nature of work, duties and responsibilities attached thereto are the relevant factors while comparing and evaluating as to whether the workmen employed through the contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as workmen directly employed by the principal employer. Thus, nature of work, duties and responsibilities attached thereto are the relevant factors while comparing and evaluating as to whether the workmen employed through the contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as workmen directly employed by the principal employer. The degree of skill and various dimensions of a given job have to be gone into to reach a conclusion that the nature of duties of the staff in two categories are at par or otherwise. It may be possible that difference may be of degree but still that has to be taken into consideration while evaluating two sets of workers. It is also required to be taken into consideration that nature of work cannot be judged by mere volume of work, as reliability and responsibility of worker cannot be totally ignored. In this case, except recording that the contract labourers engaged through the contractor are doing similar work, the C.L.C. in his order has not gone deep into the evidence and material placed before him. The only consideration by the Labour Commissioner in the impugned order is evidence of few workers from the contractor's side. Out of 190 regular workmen of the contractor, they have examined only 9 workers. Out of these nine, six are the persons who are permanent and two are on contract basis. It will be relevant to mention here that these six persons have not made any grievance. Similarly, in case of Horticultural Garden, out of 71 contract labourers, only one was examined and in case of House-keeping/maintenance, out of 57 also, only one was examined. Therefore, based on examination of two contract labourers from Canteen, one from Horticultural Garden and one from House-keeping/maintenance, it cannot be said that the job performed by the workers engaged by contractors and that of the principal employer are same or similar. 17. The Court would like to discuss evidence of these witnesses in further detail. Shri Raghu Kootiyan, examined by the Union, has stated in his deposition that he is designated as Assistant Manager, but working as a clerk. He collects hot and dry snacks as required and distribute the same to lower staff, namely, vendors and helpers for filling in boxes. In cross-examination, he has stated that he maintains stock registers relating to hot and dry snacks. He said that there is a separate person who maintains stock register for raw materials. He collects hot and dry snacks as required and distribute the same to lower staff, namely, vendors and helpers for filling in boxes. In cross-examination, he has stated that he maintains stock registers relating to hot and dry snacks. He said that there is a separate person who maintains stock register for raw materials. He also stated that he is not responsible for maintenance of hygiene in the canteen and takes order from various sections, departments in the Refinery over telephone. Mr. Sudesh Shetty, an employee of the contractor in his cross-examination has stated that he takes attendance of the staff in the morning and issues slips for distribution of snacks. He does not maintain any inventory of stationery items and also does not maintain any stock items. Shri Vittal Shetty, Supervisor in the contract canteen, in his evidence has stated that he prepares slips and gives to the vendors. The vendors carry lunch boxes as per the details in the book. Another witness of contractor Mr. K.C. Sharma, Head Cook, has been examined who has stated that he is working as Head Cook for the last 12 years. He checks menu daily and prepares dishes accordingly. He prepares hot and dry snacks and also prepares food items like rice, dal, vegetables etc. He also cooks food for old guest house when there are parties. In cross-examination, he has stated that he prepares dry snacks like 'dalmooth', 'mor-sev', mixtures, 'bundi and 'laddus', 'puri bhaji, 'samaosa', 'pakoda', cutlet. Daily he prepares one item each of hot and dry snacks. He prepares rice, dal etc. for the staff of contractor canteen. He also prepares 'pulav' 'kadhi, and different types of vegetables, salad and also prepares non-vegetarian items. Shri Ganpat Dholpude of contractor canteen stated that he is working for the last 11 years. He prepares food item as per menu. Every day one 'dry nasta' and one hot snack are prepared. He prepares masala for 'samosa' etc. 18. On the other hand, appellant has examined their witnesses. Shri Manoj Suthariya, cook in the Refinery is examined by the management. He stated that he is working in the Refinery for the last three years. He is higher secondary pass and diploma holder in catering and nutrition. Before joining Refinery, he worked in a Five-Star Hotel. After seeing an advertisement for the present post, he applied for it. Shri Manoj Suthariya, cook in the Refinery is examined by the management. He stated that he is working in the Refinery for the last three years. He is higher secondary pass and diploma holder in catering and nutrition. Before joining Refinery, he worked in a Five-Star Hotel. After seeing an advertisement for the present post, he applied for it. He had to undergo written test and trade test. He works in the canteen. His post is not supervisory and he gets over-time. His daily duty hours are eight hours and he is rotated in shifts. He has further stated that he prepares 1,400 'thalis' in a day, i.e. in two shifts. Menu consists of nine items, namely, puri, dal, two vegetables, one sweet, one non-vegetable dish, salad. According to him, canteen house-keeping is done by helper. He ensures cleanliness with the help of helper. He has further stated that his service conditions are governed by standing orders and his A.C.R. is written by higher officers. In case of any lapse, he can be charge-sheeted under the Standing Orders. He, therefore, states that there is responsibility in his job. In cross-examination he has stated that he used to prepare food in Five-Star Hotels before joining the Refinery. In the present assignment, he prepares Gujarati dal. Nature of job of this officer is proportionate to the qualification possessed by him. This witness has further deposed that me difference in working of both me cooks is that cooks employed by the principal employer also prepare non-vegetarian food which cooks of contractor do not prepare. 19. After evaluating the evidence of cooks examined from both the sides, learned C.L.C. has reached to a conclusion that the only difference between the cooks engaged by contractor and that of principal employer is that the cooks of principal employer can prepare non-vegetarian and sweet dish which cooks of contractor are not preparing. However, contractor's cooks prepare sweet items like 'bundi', 'laddu and number of dry snacks. Not only there is similarity in working of two sets of cooks, but structurally also their job is production of eatables from raw materials. So, according to the C.L.C., the only logical conclusion that can follow in the present case is that the work performed by two set of cooks is predominantly the same and similar. 20. Not only there is similarity in working of two sets of cooks, but structurally also their job is production of eatables from raw materials. So, according to the C.L.C., the only logical conclusion that can follow in the present case is that the work performed by two set of cooks is predominantly the same and similar. 20. Apart from the employees working in canteen, both sides have examined gardeners working in the Refinery. Evaluating their evidence, the C.L.C. found that 'malis' of the contractor are performing the same job which were being performed by the 'malls' of the Refinery. According to him, the only difference as brought out in the statement of the Refinery 'malls' is that they can do grafting of plants which cannot be done by 'malis' engaged by the contractor. There are no permanent sweepers engaged by the principal employer in the Refinery and as such there is no valid comparison of sweepers engaged by the contractor. 21. The Court is of the considered opinion that work being done by two sets of workers, i.e. employed by the contractor and those employed directly by the principal employer cannot be said to be same or similar. I.T.I, pass and diploma holder trained cooks who had worked in Five-Star Hotels cannot be equated with the cooks engaged by the contractors. Appointments of principal employer's employees are being made by a Selection Committee through a selection process on the basis of eligibility and advertisement by the Board. There is annual assessment of each employee. He is given incentives like step up in his salary and promotion depending upon his performance and sincerity to the job. Being a permanent employee, he is more responsible and performs his duty in a disciplined manner. The amount of trust which can be imposed on a permanent Government employee cannot be equated with the labourer engaged by the contractor. Therefore, induction procedure, classifying eligibility, skill and accountability have to be borne in mind while evaluating the job done by both the set of employees. The preparation of non-vegetarian food by the employees of P.E. is not the only distinguishing factor in working of both the cooks. The cooks of P.E. prepare 1,400 'thalis' while cooks engaged by contractor prepare food which is consumed by few workers working in kitchen. The preparation of non-vegetarian food by the employees of P.E. is not the only distinguishing factor in working of both the cooks. The cooks of P.E. prepare 1,400 'thalis' while cooks engaged by contractor prepare food which is consumed by few workers working in kitchen. There is lot of difference in preparing food for few workers and 1400 thalis' meant for employees working in Refinery. Further, as deposed by witnesses, the 'malis' engaged by the contractor do not know "grafting" of plants. This Court is of the view that grafting of plant is an important aspect which cannot be ignored. The Court cannot close its eye to the factors like source and mode of recruitment/appointment, nature of work, value judgment, responsibility, reliability, experience etc. Similarity in designation or quantum of work is not the only criteria which can equate two sets of employees. 22. Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to various pronouncements of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in this matter. Decision of the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board v. Uttar Pradesh Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh (supra) is the latest judgment and directly deals with the point in controversy, wherein it has been held as under: "11. Nature of work, duties and responsibilities attached thereto are relevant in comparing and evaluating as to whether the workmen employed through contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer. Degree of skill and various dimensions of a given job have to be gone into to reach a conclusion that nature of duties of the staff in two categories are on par or otherwise. Often the difference may be of a degree. It is well settled that nature of work cannot be judged by mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility...." 23. This case can be viewed from another angle as well. As observed earlier, the employees selected by the principal employer are duly qualified, they appear in examination and enter service while competing with other similarly situated persons. On the other hand, employees engaged by the contractor usually are not possessing requisite qualifications and have no particular experience as required for the job. Their induction through contractor will be a back-door entry. On the other hand, employees engaged by the contractor usually are not possessing requisite qualifications and have no particular experience as required for the job. Their induction through contractor will be a back-door entry. Later on allowing them to claim the same pay and salary with that of duly recruited employees employed by principal employer will be against law which is time and again deprecated by various Courts, including the Apex Court. In Umadevi v. Secretary, State of Karnataka, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 , the practice of appointing persons on ad hoc basis or entry into service through back-door has been held to be against the law. It will be unnecessary to multiply judgments on the point in controversy, particularly in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board (supra). 24. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments: "(1) State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, reported in 2011 (3) SCC 436 . (2) Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank, reported in 2007 (2) SCC 230. (3) Panki Thermal Power Station v. Vidyut Mazdoor Sangathan, reported at 2009 (11) SCC 277 . (4) B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal, in Civil Appeal No. 10957 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14572 of 2012. (5) M/s. Mackinnon Mackenzine & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D 'Costa, reported in 1987 (2) SCC 469 . (6) M/s. Gammon India Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1974 (1) SCC 596 ." 25. The proposition of law contained in these judgments is not disputed. However, these are not applicable to the facts of this case, especially under the circumstances where the judgment in Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board (supra) directly deals with the point in controversy. 26. In view of the settled principle of law and also in view of the decision taken by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) in the case of similarly situated employees represented by another Union, the order of C.L.C. and the order of learned Single Judge cannot be termed as satisfactory. 26. In view of the settled principle of law and also in view of the decision taken by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) in the case of similarly situated employees represented by another Union, the order of C.L.C. and the order of learned Single Judge cannot be termed as satisfactory. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed and the orders passed by both the authorities are quashed and set aside by holding that there is qualitative difference between the responsibilities of the two sets of workmen, as regular employees possess higher qualification than that of the workmen employed by the contractor, and therefore, they cannot be treated as same or similar. Appeal allowed.