JUDGMENT : M.S. JAWALKAR, J. (1) Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties. (2) By this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 28/12/2013 passed by the Respondent No. 1 – Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Mumbai by which the Petitioners were directed to make parity with regular workers directly employed by the Petitioner No. 2 - NEERI and fix their pay in a revised pay band and scale of Rs. 5200-20200 (PB-1) on the basis of the letter dated 21/07/2010 issued by the Joint Secretary (Admin) of the parent Ministry. (3) The facts giving rise for filing of the present Writ Petition are as under. (4) The Petitioner No. 2, a Research Institution, owned and funded by the Government of India, invited tender and accordingly awarded a job contract to the Respondent No. 4 for the period from 01/09/2008 to 31/08/2009 for the specified work concerning Job No. 1 i.e. cleaning, sanitation, housekeeping; Job No. 2 i.e. Horticulture; and Job No. 3 i.e. various jobs/activities related to externally funded projects to be executed by the Respondent No. 4 at NEERI headquarters, Nagpur and its zonal laboratories at Mumbai, New Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Hyderabad on specified terms and conditions. On 30/09/2008, the Labour Enforcement Officer, Mumbai had visited the Zonal Laboratory at Mumbai and termed the workers working in NEERI, Mumbai as unskilled labours and directed to pay minimum wages @ Rs. 181.35 NP from 01/08/2008 and pursuant thereto, the Respondent No. 4 claimed the said minimum wages which the Petitioner No. 2 agreed as per the approval from CSIR parental Institution (Petitioner No. 1) as per Notification dated07/08/2008. (5) On 29/12/2009, the Respondent No. 3 – Sangh submitted a Complaint to the Respondent No. 2 demanding payment of wages to the contract labourers at par with Groups C and D Employees of the Petitioners. On 08/03/2010, the Respondent No. 2 informed the Petitioners that it proposes to visit the Petitioner – Institution. (6) According to the Petitioners, despite letter issued by the Director of the Petitioners stating that he is on tour and requesting to postpone the proposed visit, the Labour Enforcement Officer perforce visited the Petitioner – Institution on 17/03/2010 and drawn enquiry note. (6) According to the Petitioners, despite letter issued by the Director of the Petitioners stating that he is on tour and requesting to postpone the proposed visit, the Labour Enforcement Officer perforce visited the Petitioner – Institution on 17/03/2010 and drawn enquiry note. In pursuance to the said enquiry note, on 05/07/2010, the Respondent No. 2 sent letter to the Petitioner – Institution directing to pay wages to the Contractor’s Employees at par with permanent Employees from the date they have been engaged and directed to report compliance. On 16/07/2010, the Petitioner – Institution informed in reply that there is already a dispute raised by Contractor’s Employees before the Labour Court, and therefore, there is no justification to issue such direction. On 08/09/2010, the Respondent No. 3 also made a Complaint against the Petitioners to the Respondent No. 1 who forwarded the said Complaint to the Petitioner – Institution on 14/09/2010 followed by the letter dated 01/11/2010 wherein it was directed to the Petitioners to attend the hearing on 11/11/2010 in its office at Mumbai. On 08/11/2010, the Petitioners reiterated their contentions in the communication sent to the Respondent No. 1 about the pendency of the same matter before the Labour Court at Nagpur which was dismissed and the same is now pending before the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur and requested to await the decision. (7) According to the Petitioners, on 12/11/2010, despite the said fact, the Respondent No. 1 visited the Petitioner – Institution, and thereafter, directed the Petitioners to appear before it on 15/12/2010. The Administrative Officer attended the hearing on the said date. On 15/12/2010, the Proceedings were concluded and signed by both the parties wherein it was agreed that the Respondent No. 3 – Union shall submit documentary evidence to the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 1. On 17/07/2011, the Respondent No. 1 issued an order directing the Petitioners to grant the wages corresponding to pay scales to the Contractor’s Employees at par with permanent Employees of the Petitioners. On 07/12/2011, the Petitioners challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 6230/2011 before this Court, wherein this Court granted interim relief. (8) It appears that on 14/08/2013, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by directing the Respondent No. 1 to grant opportunity to the parties in terms of the Proceedings recorded by it on 15/12/2010. On 07/12/2011, the Petitioners challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 6230/2011 before this Court, wherein this Court granted interim relief. (8) It appears that on 14/08/2013, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by directing the Respondent No. 1 to grant opportunity to the parties in terms of the Proceedings recorded by it on 15/12/2010. On 26/09/2013, the Respondent No. 1 issued notice of hearing and fixed the matter on 09/10/2013. Hearing was attended by the Petitioners. Respondent No. 1 concluded the hearing with directions to the Petitioners to submit their reply on merits on the documents filed by the Respondent No. 3. On 24/10/2013, the Petitioners filed reply in detail. The Petitioners also placed reliance on the judgments which were annexed to the said reply. On 12/11/2013, the Petitioners filed reply to minutes of meeting held on 28/10/2013. On 13/12/2013, the Respondent No. 3 – Union filed Rejoinder to the reply and filed annual reports for 2007 to 2011 along with two more Rejoinders/additional replies. On 23/12/2013, Minutes of hearing were recorded. The Petitioners submitted reply to Minutes of Meeting on 24/12/2013 and also recorded objection about the proposed visit of the Respondent No. 1 to the establishment of the Petitioners. On 28/12/2013, the Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the CL (R & A) Central Rules”) thereby directing the Petitioners to grant pay band and scale to the contract Employees at par with permanently appointed staff of the Petitioners. The said order dated 28/12/20213 is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition. (9) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Application/Complaint filed before the Respondent No. 1 – Authority was without jurisdiction since it was a summary procedure power, which was to be exercised by the Respondent No. 1 – Authority. It is submitted that it is settled law that the legality of any order, status of any Employee, the rates and wages cannot be adjudicated by the Labour Commissioner and the same lies within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to adjudicate the issue. It is submitted that it is settled law that the legality of any order, status of any Employee, the rates and wages cannot be adjudicated by the Labour Commissioner and the same lies within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to adjudicate the issue. It is submitted that plain reading of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules, if duly interpreted applying the principles of interpretation, does not empower the Respondent No. 1 to grant any pay scale to the contract labour Employee as ordered in the impugned order. The Rule only empowers the Respondent No. 1 to find out the disagreement with regard to type of work with those of the Employees employed by the Contractor and the workman directly employed by the Principal Employer of an establishment and does not empower the Respondent No. 1 to grant any pay scale as done so by the impugned order. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 1 has failed to record any statement of the Management staff or otherwise and so also, there is no observation on what basis the Respondent No. 1 has arrived that pay band and scale of Rs. 5200-20200 has to be paid to the contract labour workers. It is also submitted that the without giving opportunity to the Petitioners to meet the Rejoinder filed by the Respondent No. 3 and to argue the matter, the Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order, though this Court has directed that opportunity be extended to the Petitioner to respond to the documents/evidence. As such, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1 suffers from illegality and prays for quashing and setting aside the same. As such, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 1 suffers from illegality and prays for quashing and setting aside the same. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in support of his contentions, relied on the following citations:- (a) Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board & another vs. Uttar Pradesh Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh, (2009) 17 SCC 318 (b) State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Principal Secretary & others vs. Seema Sharma, (2023) 14 SCC 376 (c) State of Punjab & others vs. Jagjit Singh & others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 (d) Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited vs. Jaswant Singh & another, (2010) 9 SCC 151 (10) Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submitted that the Petitioners were engaging the contract workers ostensibly for one purpose, but were actually taking from them the work of regular and permanent Employees for years together and paying them only nominal wages as contract workers and these workers were constrained to form a union. Even today, these workers are performing their duties as were claimed by them. It is submitted that enough time was granted by the Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioners to prove their case. It is submitted that the provisions of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules does not require that qualifications of the workman performing duties of similar nature performed or to be performed by a permanent Employee must possess the same qualifications. The said Rule provides for payment of similar pay for similar work and nothing more. An Employee cannot be permitted to defeat the object and purpose of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) framed under the CL (R & A) Central Rules. It is submitted that mere employment of the contract labour as alleged unskilled labour is not determinative of the lis whereas the actual work being performed by them is conclusive of the matter and relief under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) read with other provisions of the CL (R & A) Central Rules can be granted. The order passed by the Respondent No. 1 is fully within the four corners of Rule 25(2)(v) (a) and read with other provisions of the CL (R & A) Central Rules. As such, he prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. The order passed by the Respondent No. 1 is fully within the four corners of Rule 25(2)(v) (a) and read with other provisions of the CL (R & A) Central Rules. As such, he prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. (11) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, in support of his contentions, relied on the following citations:- (a) Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & others, (1990) 3 SCC 682 (b) Airports Authority of India vs. Authority, 2011 (12) S.C.T. 802 (c) M/s. Gammon India Limited & others vs. Union of India & others, (1974) 1 SCC 596 (d) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. D.J. Bahadur & others, (1981) 1 SCC 315 (e) Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Allahabad vs. Pushkar Datt Sharma, (1967) 14 FLR 204 (12) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length, considered the documents on record, impugned order and citations relied on by both the parties. (13) The Petitioners herein challenged the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 – Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) dated 28/12/2023 by which the Petitioners were directed to make parity with regular workers directly employed by merit and fix their pay in a revised pay band and scale of Rs. 5200-20200 (PB-1) on the basis of the letter dated 21/07/2010 issued by the Joint Secretary (Admin) of the parent ministry. There was Complaint to the Respondent No. 2 by the Association demanding the payment of wages to the contract labourers at par with the Groups C and D Employees of the Petitioners. It appears that the Respondent No. 2 informed the Petitioners that it proposes to visit the Petitioner - Institution on 17/03/2010. The Director of the Petitioners was on tour and the Respondent No. 2 was informed to that effect. In pursuance of the enquiry, the Respondent No. 2 directed the Petitioners to pay the wages to the contractor’s Employees at par with the permanent Employees from the date they have been engaged and directed to report compliance. The Petitioner - Institution informed in reply that there is already a dispute raised by the contractor Employees before the Labour Court and the Respondent No. 3 - Neeri Thekedari Mazdoor Sangh also made a Complaint against the Petitioners to the Respondent No. 1 – Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). The Petitioner - Institution informed in reply that there is already a dispute raised by the contractor Employees before the Labour Court and the Respondent No. 3 - Neeri Thekedari Mazdoor Sangh also made a Complaint against the Petitioners to the Respondent No. 1 – Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). In personal hearing, all these aspects were put-forth by the Petitioners to the Respondent No. 1. After hearing and considering the documents filed on record, the Respondent No. 1 passed the order dated 28/12/2013 thereby directing the Petitioners to grant pay band and scale to the contractor Employees at par with the permanently appointed staff of the Petitioners. The Respondent No. 1 passed the said order under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules. (14) Shri R.S. Sundaram, learned Counsel for the Petitioners raised preliminary objection that the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 - Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) is passed without jurisdiction. The Respondent No. 3 i.e. Neeri Thekedari Majdoor Sangh filed the Proceedings under Sections 78 and 79 before the learned Labour Court, and thereafter, the learned Industrial Court. As such, the Proceedings before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) is without jurisdiction. The Respondent No. 3 cannot opt two forums at a time. Second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the Respondents had filed Conciliation Proceedings before the Conciliation Officer (Central) who have submitted the failure report on 30/07/2015 and the Central Government, vide order dated 11/09/2015, had referred the industrial dispute for adjudication of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGIT’). As such, the issue of equal pay for equal work is also under adjudication with the CGIT. (15) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the judgment in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited (supra) in support of his contention that enquiry by the Labour Commissioner is of summary nature and he cannot decide and examine the factual matters relating to the issue as to whether the persons concerned is a ‘workman’ or not. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph No. 22 of the said judgment thus observed as under:- “22. Whether or not a person is a workman is a matter that relates primarily to facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph No. 22 of the said judgment thus observed as under:- “22. Whether or not a person is a workman is a matter that relates primarily to facts and circumstances of the case. The same has nothing to do with the application and interpretation of the Standing Orders. What needs to be examined and looked into for deciding the aforesaid issue is the nature of job performed by the concerned person, duties and responsibilities vested on him and other such relevant material. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court committed a mistake in determining the said issue as an ancillary to that of the applicability and interpretation of the Standing Order.” (16) Shri S. Thakur, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submitted that, there is no question of jurisdiction when the High Court directed the Authority to decide the matter. It is also contended that the Proceedings before the learned Industrial Court is in respect of the regularization. It is further submitted that Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules gives power to the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner to decide the wages. For the sake of convenience, Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules is reproduced below:- “25. Forms and terms and conditions of licence.— (1) ..... (2) Every licence granted under sub-rule (1) or renewed under rule 29 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:— (i) ..... (ii) ..... (iii) ..... (iv) ..... For the sake of convenience, Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules is reproduced below:- “25. Forms and terms and conditions of licence.— (1) ..... (2) Every licence granted under sub-rule (1) or renewed under rule 29 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:— (i) ..... (ii) ..... (iii) ..... (iv) ..... (v)(a) in cases where the workman 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 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 Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Explanation.—While determining the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of services under (b) above, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) shall have due regard to the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service obtaining in similar employments;" (17) On perusal of the impugned order of the learned Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, it is clear that it is passed under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules. In Writ Petition No. 6230/2011, this Court, vide order dated 14/08/2013, directed the Respondent No. 1 - Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner to provide an opportunity to the parties in terms of the Proceedings recorded by it on 15/12/2010 at Bombay. It is also directed to the Respondent No. 3 to supply the necessary documents within 15 days to the Petitioner therein and the Petitioner was directed to respond to the said document/evidence in terms of the opportunity extended and recorded in the order sheet dated 15/12/2010 within a further period of three weeks. Accordingly, both the parties were granted opportunity to submit their say supporting their stand. The Union submitted that the contractual workers have filed the case before the learned Labour Court for regularization under the BIR Act, 1947 and the BIR Act and the CL (R & A) Act, 1970 are entirely different. Accordingly, both the parties were granted opportunity to submit their say supporting their stand. The Union submitted that the contractual workers have filed the case before the learned Labour Court for regularization under the BIR Act, 1947 and the BIR Act and the CL (R & A) Act, 1970 are entirely different. Therefore, the issue before the learned Labour Court i.e. industrial dispute pending for adjudication cannot be mixed up with the Application under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules. In view thereof, the Respondent – Union requested to pass appropriate order for payment of the same or similar wages for the same or similar work comparing the work of contract workers with that of the regular Employees of the Principal Employer. (18) The contention of the Management – NEERI before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner was that there is no workman permanently engaged/appointed by NEERI with respect to the categories of workers as designated workman referred by the Union to the nomenclature as per their whims so as to demonstrate that they are doing the said work. There is no such category of workmen in the employment of NEERI Management as claimed by the Union. Hence, the question of such category of workmen being engaged/appointed does not arise at all. The main objection before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner by the Petitioners herein was that the similar issue is pending before the learned Industrial Court in Case Nos. 03/2010 and 72/2010. Second objection was that the documents which are submitted by the Union are not acceptable to the Petitioner - NEERI as these documents are not supposed to be in their custody such as file noting, some certificates issued by the Officers of NEERI in their personal capacity. Though the Management accepted their signature on the enquiry note dated 17/03/2010, they have denied the annexure to the report stating about recording of statements of the Employees. (19) It is submitted that by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner has not considered before reaching to the conclusion that the nature of duties of the staff in two categories are on a par or otherwise by comparing the nature of job, reliability and responsibility. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Paragraph Nos. 11 and 14 as under:- “10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Paragraph Nos. 11 and 14 as under:- “10. 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. …..The Labour Commissioner ought to have adverted to the nature of duties of the staff in the two categories, degree of skill and dimensions of the job for reaching the conclusion that the work done by the contract labour in the second filtration plant is same or similar to the kind of work done by the employees employed by the principal employer directly in the main plant. There is no discussion at all by the Labour Commissioner as to how he arrived at the conclusion about similarity of work. The evidence let in by the parties and the material placed by them seem to have not at all been considered by the Labour Commissioner.” (20) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Principal Secretary (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “mere similarity of designation or similarity or quantum of work not determinative of equality in matter of pay scales, but relevant factors such as mode of recruitment, qualifications for the post, nature of work and value of work, responsibilities involved etc and various other factors need to be considered.” The Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the doctrine for equal pay for equal work can only be invoked when the employees are similarly circumstanced in every way. (21) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also relied on the judgment in the case of State of Punjab (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that the principle of equal pay for equal work expounded through various decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court constitutes law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is binding on all the Courts in India. As such, it is also applicable to the temporary Employees performing same duties and responsibilities as regular Employees. It is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour, more- so in a welfare State. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position of the State. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the temporary Employees possessing requisite qualifications and appointed against posts which were also available in regular cadre, performing similar duties and responsibilities as being discharged by regular Employees holding same/corresponding posts, were entitled to claim wages on a par with minimum pay scale of regular Employees holding the said posts. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the temporary Employees possessing requisite qualifications and appointed against posts which were also available in regular cadre, performing similar duties and responsibilities as being discharged by regular Employees holding same/corresponding posts, were entitled to claim wages on a par with minimum pay scale of regular Employees holding the said posts. The Hon’ble Apex Court in this matter, summarized parameters for applicability of principle of equal pay for equal work, which are reproduced as under:- “(i) claimant must prove that subject post occupied by him requires him to discharge equal work of equal value and sensitivity as reference post; (ii) mere fact that subject post occupied by claimant is in different department vis-à-vis reference post inconsequential; (iii) principle cannot be automatically invoked merely because subject and reference post have same nomenclature; (iv) differentiation of pay scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality fall within realm of valid classification justifying pay differentiation; (v) persons performing similar functions, duties and responsibilities can be placed in different pay scales such as "selection grade" in same post but such difference must have legitimate foundation such as merit, seniority, etc.; (vi) reference post with which parity is claimed must be in same hierarchy as subject post; (vii) principle inapplicable where subject post and reference post are in different establishments having different management or even where establishments are in different geographical locations though owned by same master; (vii) priority given to different types of post under prevalent Government policy can be relevant factor for placing different posts under different scales; (viii) principle inapplicable where differential higher pay scale is extended to persons discharging same duties and holding same designation with objective of ameliorating stagnation or decrease of lack of promotional avenues” (22) So far as the objection with regard to the identical issue pending before the learned Industrial Court is concerned, it was not the same issue, but the said matter was for regularization of the contract labourers as they were working for so many years on contract basis. Though it is alleged that the custody of the documents was with NEERI except the certificate which have been issued by the Officers of NEERI in their personal capacity, the Union submitted that the original documents can be provided by the Management. Though it is alleged that the custody of the documents was with NEERI except the certificate which have been issued by the Officers of NEERI in their personal capacity, the Union submitted that the original documents can be provided by the Management. So far as the statements are concerned, they are recorded in the presence of the representatives of the Management of NEERI. Two issues were framed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) about the maintainability of the Application and applicability of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules and Section 12(1) of the said Act. (23) In my considered view, on perusal of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules, the issue whether the workman employed by the contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as the workman directly employed by the Principal Employer of the establishment, their 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 and similar kind of work. If there is any disagreement with regard to the type of work, it has to be decided by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). As such, the order passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Admittedly, the Application which was filed by the Union is in respect of the same and similar pay which are applicable to the workmen directly employed by the Principal Employer as they are performing the same or similar kind of work. As there is disagreement between the Union and NEERI Management, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) is the only Authority where such dispute can be decided. The Authority has conducted the investigation, recorded the statements of workers working in the various Departments, also considered the various sections and report in that regard and it was found that the contract workers are performing the job of regular workers. In view of explanation to above referred rule, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner is empowered to fix wage rate taking into account wage rules obtaining in similar employment. As such, the authority is empowered to fix the wage rate. In view of explanation to above referred rule, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner is empowered to fix wage rate taking into account wage rules obtaining in similar employment. As such, the authority is empowered to fix the wage rate. (24) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners drawn my attention to the chart produced in the order (Page No. 39 of the Writ Petition) and submitted that in most of the cases, there was no regular workman found below Column No. 8. As such, there was nothing to compare so as to grant the pay band of Rs. 5200- 20200. However, the Petitioners have not denied that those posts are vacant or the Employees holding those posts were not receiving the pay scale as arrived at by Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner. (25) Though it is alleged that only one day’s time was granted to reply on the documents, however, there is no substance in view of the minutes of hearing held on 23/12/2013 before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai. In the first place, in Writ Petition No. 6230/2011, this Court directed the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai to take necessary final decision afresh, uninfluenced by its earlier order, in any case by 31/12/2013. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 14/08/2013. It also appears from the said minutes that the Management was advised to submit their reply on merits on the documents filed by the Union. The said Management accordingly filed their reply on 23/10/2013. It also appears that the Management was advised to submit the documents as mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 5 in the minutes of the meeting. Accordingly, the Management filed their reply on 12/11/2013. The Union also submitted their response to the letter of the Management vide their letter dated 13/12/2013. The matter was posted again for hearing on 23/12/2013. During hearing, the Management of CSIR, NEERI requested 15 days time to submit their reply on the rejoinder filed by the Union. Though the Management has received the copy of the reply on 16/12/2013, they have not filed their submissions on 23/12/2013 during hearing. In view of the fact that the matter was made time bound by this Court, therefore, one more day was granted to file submissions. There is no substance that only one day was granted to reply to the response given by the Union. In view of the fact that the matter was made time bound by this Court, therefore, one more day was granted to file submissions. There is no substance that only one day was granted to reply to the response given by the Union. It appears that though the Management received the copy on 16/12/2013 having full knowledge that the matter is time bound and was placed for hearing on 23/12/2023, no submissions were made. It is also alleged that no opportunity to cross-examine was granted to the Petitioner. Unilateral exercise of power amounts to arbitrariness. However, there is nothing on record to show that any request to cross-examine was ever made by the Petitioners to the Authority. (26) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 drawn my attention to the enquiry notes dated 11/03/2010 and 17/03/2010. As per these notes, the contract labours are engaged by M/s. Eagle Security and Personal Services, Mumbai and the contract commenced from 01/09/2008, the wage rate is monthly and they are being provided weekly off on Sundays. As many as 26 workers’ details were obtained. Most of the workers are working for more than 10 to 14 years. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner claimed for cross-examination of the said workers. In fact, it is a fact finding enquiry. Even in view of the directions issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur to the Director, NEERI, that in view of the Rule 25(2)(b)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules, in cases where the workman 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 workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work. In case of any disagreement with regard to the type of work, the same shall be decided by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). In case of any disagreement with regard to the type of work, the same shall be decided by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). (27) If the order dated 14/08/2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 6230/2011 is perused, this Court, with the consent of contesting Respondents, set aside the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 and it was directed to provide an opportunity to the parties in terms of the Proceedings recorded by it on 15/12/2010 at Mumbai. The Respondent No. 3 was directed to supply necessary documents within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of the order dated 14/08/2013. The Petitioner was directed to respond to the said documents/evidence in terms of the opportunity extended and recorded in the order dated 15/12/2010 within a further period of three weeks. The parties were directed to remain present on 30/09/2013 and the Respondent No. 1 – Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner was directed to take decision afresh by 31/12/2013. It appears that after the directions by this Court, copy of the documents were supplied to the Management. The Management was advised to submit their reply on merits on the documents filed by the Union. As such, the Management filed their reply on 23/12/2013. As such, there is no grievance of any kind raised by the Management for cross-examination of any of the Employees. (28) So far as the certificate issued by the Officials of the Management is concerned, the stand of the Management was that they were issued by the unauthorized persons. However, the persons issuing certificate to contract workers are Officers of petitioner management. Therefore, there is no reasons to hold that the certificates issued by unauthorized persons. Moreover, petitioner has not come with specific submission who is the competent authority to issue certificates to the contract workers. (29) There is no dispute over the proposition laid down in the citations relied upon by the Petitioners, however, each case has to be decided on the basis of the work performed by the contract labourers and by the permanent Employee. I have also considered the citations relied upon by the Petitioners. So far as the judgment in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited (supra) is concerned, the facts are distinguishable. I have also considered the citations relied upon by the Petitioners. So far as the judgment in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited (supra) is concerned, the facts are distinguishable. The issue involved before the Hon’ble Apex Court was whether the Labour Commissioner can decide as to whether a person is ‘workman’ under the provisions of UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1946. The Labour Court has specifically been empowered to decide such issue. It is held that the Labour Commissioner has no power to decide such an issue whereas in present case it is an admitted position that the Respondents are workers engaged through Labour Contract Agency. (30) Similarly, insofar as the judgment in the case of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board (supra) is concerned, there were Employees working in two different filtration plants – one permanent and another temporary. The permanent plan runs 24 hours, it has six pumps and each has the capacity of 170 H.P. The chemicals are mixed at this plant mechanically and for its operation, eligible and responsible Employees are required. To run temporary plant, skilled and semi-skilled Employees were engaged by the Contractor. However, in the present matter, the Employees of Contractor are working on permanent establishment of NEERI and not on temporary establishment. Moreover, they are unskilled workers. (31) After investigation, it was revealed that in almost all the sections, contract workers listed in the column are doing the same or similar work which is performed by the regular workmen and in some of the sections, the contractor workers and regular workers are performing the same job by changing the nomenclature of the designation as a technical part. It was also revealed from the annual report of NEERI about the status of vacancies for the period 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11. The total sanctioned strength for four years is about 506+4, posts filled in are 341+4 and there is shortfall of about 165 vacancies. This clearly goes to show that there is vacuum of vacancies due to retirement or for any other reason for which posts were not filled through the direct recruitment. Though the Petitioners have not denied that the contract workers are working in their establishment, however, it is the contention that they are only assisting their regular workers. This clearly goes to show that there is vacuum of vacancies due to retirement or for any other reason for which posts were not filled through the direct recruitment. Though the Petitioners have not denied that the contract workers are working in their establishment, however, it is the contention that they are only assisting their regular workers. In view of the unfilled vacancies, no other inference can be drawn that the Petitioners – Management have engaged the contract workers in place of vacant post or they are extracting the work from the contract workers. This fact is also supported by statements recorded by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner. (32) Section 12(1) of the said Act puts an embargo on execution of any contract work without obtaining the labour license. Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules read with Section 12(2) of the said Act entitles the contract workers performing the same or similar kind of work as performed by the workmen directly employed by the Principal Employer of the establishment, same wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of services. In spite of opportunity granted to the Petitioners – Management, they have not placed on record what kind of work contract workers were doing. On the contrary, during the investigation, it was found that the contract workers are doing the work of regular workmen who were directly appointed by the Principal Employer. There is no necessity to look into the educational qualifications of the unskilled workers, if it is established that the contract workers are performing the same or similar kind of work as compared to the workers employed directly by the Principal Employer. (33) There is reference of one letter dated 21/07/2010 issued by the Joint Secretary (Admin) of Counsel of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) from their parent ministry, addressed to all the Directors/Head of the National Laboratories/Institute to follow the CSIR Service Rules. It is mentioned that the said recommendation of the Committee constituted for the purpose was also accepted by the Director General - CSIR in the capacity as Chairman of the governing body. For the satisfaction of this Court, the Petitioners were directed to place on record this communication dated 21/07/2010. On perusal of the letter dated 21/07/2010, it appears that the entire technical and support staff are divided into three groups for recruitment. For the satisfaction of this Court, the Petitioners were directed to place on record this communication dated 21/07/2010. On perusal of the letter dated 21/07/2010, it appears that the entire technical and support staff are divided into three groups for recruitment. Each group has a number of grades and the designation of the incumbent is based on the group and grade to which he/she belongs. The said letter is issued keeping in view the demand received from the staff’s side for giving functional designation and with the merger of few scales with the implementation of 6 th CPC, a Committee was constituted to review the existing CSIR Service Rules, 1994 and give its recommendation. Based on the recommendation of the Committee, the functional designation of technical and support staff was approved. It appears that Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) relied on this scale/grade while fixing the pay band. It is material to note that in explanation to Rule 25(5)(b) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules, it is mentioned that while determining wage rates, holidays and other work conditions, The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner shall have due regard to wage rates other conditions of employees directly appointed doing similar work. As such, the Chief Labour Commissioner has discretion to decide the wage rates by considering the wage rates of directly employed workers. He has also considered the communication dated 21/07/2010 wherein the pay band with specific designation is given. In fact, it was the Petitioners who ought to have supplied the details of the pay band to the similarly situated directly employed workers. However, it appears that no such details were placed by the Petitioners before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner. (34) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Allahabad (supra) in support of his contention that if the Authority is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay, the decision of the Authority in such a discretionary matter could not have been questioned by the Appellant before the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 also relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Airport Authority of India (supra) wherein, it is held in Paragraph No. 5 as under:- “5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 also relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Airport Authority of India (supra) wherein, it is held in Paragraph No. 5 as under:- “5. Admittedly it is the specific case of the second respondent that twenty of its members have been engaged by the third respondent being their contractor. A factual finding has been given by the first respondent to the effect that the work undertaken by the Members of the second respondent are similar in nature to that of the permanent employees of the petitioner. In fact, the first respondent has also made strong remarks and observations about the conduct of the petitioner in refusing to give the particulars sought for. Therefore considering the materials relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue, a factual finding has been given by the first respondent by going into the issue in detail. Hence, as submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr.K.M.Ramesh, this Court cannot review the said finding, as there is nothing to indicate any perversity warranting interference.” (35) The Madras High Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BHEL Workers Association, Hardwar & others vs. Union of India & others, (1985) 1 SCC 630 , wherein it is held in Paragraph No. 6 as under:- “6. Thus we see that no invidious distinction can be made against contract labour. Contract labour is entitled to the same wages, holidays, hours of work and conditions of service as are applicable to workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work. They are entitled to recover their wages and their conditions of service in the same manner as workers employed by the principal employer under the appropriate industrial and labour laws. If there is any dispute with regard to the type of work, the dispute has to be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). It is clear that Parliament has not abolished contract labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the Central Government in appropriate cases under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is clear that Parliament has not abolished contract labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the Central Government in appropriate cases under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is not for the Court to enquire into the question and to decide whether the employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment should be abolished or not. This is a matter for the decision of the Government after considering the matters required to be considered under Section 10 of the Act. Similarly the question whether the work done by contract labour is the same or similar work as that done by the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of any establishment is a matter to be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner under the proviso to Rule 25(ii)(v)(a)....” (36) Considering the law position and considering the above object behind the CL (R&A) Central Rules, I do not see any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and no interference needs to be called for. (37) Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed . Pending Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.