( 1 ) APPEAL on hand, stems from the judgment and order dated May 14, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner the challenge in which was focussed on the order dated october 26, 1998 passed by the Labour commissioner, U. P. Kanpur in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) of the U. P. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975.

( 2 ) AT the very threshold, Sri Ram Niwas singh, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent made a preliminary submission stating that the appeal under chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court was not maintainable. The quintessence of his submission is that the Labour Commissioner while exercising the power under Proviso to rule 25 (2) (v) acts as a Tribunal and therefore, the judgment and order of the learned single Judge made in the writ petition wherein the order of the Labour commissioner (Tribunal) was under challenge, would not be appealable. Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant repudiated the submission made by Sri Ram niwas Singh and urged in opposition that the labour Commissioner could not be equated with Tribunal within the meaning of Rule 5 of chapter VIII of the Rules of Court. For proper analytical approach to the question as to the maintainability of the appeal, it would be essential to have a birds eye-view of the relevant provisions. Rule 5 of the Chapter viii of the Rules of Court is excerpted below:"5. Special Appeal. An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction [or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a Tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise oi jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State list or the concurrent list in the Seventh schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such act of one Judge. ] (Sic) 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 labour Commissioner, U. P. , whose decision shall be final;"it would be apposite to quip here that Rule 25 (v) (a) of the U. P. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975, is in pari materia with the corresponding provisions in the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Central Rules, 1971 with the only distinguishing feature that there, the power under the proviso is conferred upon the Chief labour Commissioner and the expression whose decision shall be final has been omitted by GSR 871 (E) dated November 26, 1985 (1986-CCL-III-102 ). The word Tribunal has not been defined in the Rules of the Court. The dictionary meaning of the word Tribunal is: the seat of a Judge, and in that sense, the term would include courts of law. However the words Tribunal and court are used in Rule 5 of Chapter VIII, as they are in article 136 of the Constitution, in juxtaposition with each other to mean two similar things but not the same things. The