BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LIMITED Vs. GANGARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the labour Court, Mysore in Application No. 31/1994 dated 23rd december 2005.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 121 filed an application before the labour Court, interalia claiming the difference of minimum wages from the petitioner. The Labour Court by order dated 20th November 1996 had rejected the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings before the Labour Court against the petitioner is not maintainable, as the respondent No. 122, the Contractor was not made party. The said order was called in question by the petitioner in W. P. Nos. 7338/ 1997 and 9341 to 9459/1997. This Court by order dated 3. 12. 1997 held that the Contractor is a necessary party and directed to irnplead the Contractor in the proceeding. In view of the order passed by this court, respondents - 1 to 121, who were the claimants before the labour Court, impleaded respondent No. 122 also as second party. The Labour Court by order dated 12. 5. 2000 had allowed the application of the claimants - respondents - 1 to 121. Petitioner had called in question the said order in W. P. No. 2882 to 3002/2001 and this Court by order dated 28th February 2005 allowed the writ petition and directed the parties to appear before the Labour Court on 4. 4. 2005 by reserving liberty to file additional statement and evidence, if any and further directed the Labour Court to accept the same in accordance with law and consider both the issues namely, issue as regards to the maintainability of the application, as well as the claim of the workman. After the order of mis Court, the Labour Court heard the matter and by its order dated 23rd December 2005, allowed the application by directing the petitioner - Management to pay the arrears of minimum wages and D. A. within six months from the date of the order and also ordered for payment of interest @ 6%. It is this award, which is called in question in this writ petition by the petitioner.

(3.) SRI. KASTURI, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted, that the application for claim of difference of minimum wages is not maintainable as against the petitioner, as there is no relationship of employer and workman between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 to 121 and they are all contract labours working under the respondent No. 122. He further submitted that respondent No. 122 is an employer and the liability is only on respondent No. 122 and not on the petitioner and no claim petition under Section 33 - C sub - section (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is maintainable for recovery of difference of minimum wages from the petitioner. He further submitted that definition of workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Act does not include the contract labour as a workman and he also referred to Section 33 - C sub - section (2) of the Act and submitted that it is only the workman, who is entitled to maintain an application for claim of difference of minimum wages and not the contract labour. He further submitted that workman as defined under Section 2 (s) is only a person, who would be entitled to maintain a claim petition. Since in this case, the respondents - 1 to 121 admittedly being the contract labours working under the contract, there is no relationship of master and servant or employer and workman between the petitioner and these respondents. In the absence of any relationship, a claim petition against the petitioner is not maintainable and the Labour Court without considering this aspect of the matter, had passed an order interalia directing the petitioner to pay the difference of minimum wages along with interest.