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. 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.,