ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The concurrent findings of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Single Judge of the High Court have been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court in a most cursory manner.

3. Firstly, on the ground that only one witness of a particular class of worker had been examined. As such, their deposition is liable to be rejected. In our opinion, it could not have been a valid ground to discard the evidentiary value of the deposition of the witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses in such kind of matters but what is material is evidentiary value and cross examination which has been made. Examination of the single witness to prove a fact may be enough in such cases. Thus, the approach of the High Court is not permissible.

4. The High Court has observed that the workers employed by the contractor cannot be compared with the employees who have worked in Five Star Hotels. This is not a legally permissible way in which the High Court should have approached the case, particularly with respect to spirit of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (in short referred to as Rules). In I