STATE Vs. R L SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent R. L. Sharma was tried under Section 23 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 here in after called Act. The trial court by its judgment dated 3rd February 1982 convicted and sentenced him to the payment of Rs. 500.00 and also directed that he should undergo two months simple imprisonment if he fails to pay the fine. The respondent went in appeal which was heard by Sh. K. B. Andley. Sessions Judge, Delhi, who by his judgment dated 13-7-1983 set aside the' conviction and sentence and acquitted the respondent. Leave to appeal against this judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge was sought and was granted on 18-11-1983 by this Court.

(2.) . Staling briefly, the facts are that respondent R. L. Sharma is the proprietor of M/s. R. S. Refrigeration and Air conditioning erection and Service Centre, Delhi Development Authority Market NDSE-1, New Delhi and is a licensed contractor within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The principal employer of this establishment is M/s. Voltas Ltd., 7/1 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The respondent allegedly failed to pay wages to his skilled, unskilled and semi-skilled labourers according to the scales that were being paid by the principal employer M/s. Voltas Ltd. to the workers directly engaged by it and this was done by e respondent despite the fact that the labourers engaged by him were performing same and similar kind of functions as were being performed by the labourers engaged by the principal employe", M/s. Voltas Ltd.

(3.) . On receipt of a complaint, Shri O. P. Bindra Inspecting Officer Delhi; for registering/licensing Officer, Delhi, went for the inspection of accused establishment on 5-8-76. After satisfying himself that the workers engaged by the,respondent were doing the same and similar type of work as was being done by the workers engaged by M/s. Voltas Limited, the principal employer, and that they were not being paid ths same benefits as were paid by the principal employer to the labourers directly engaged by it he issued a show cause notice to the respondent to indicate as to why the benefits detailed in clause No. 5 of the Annexure attached to the licence should not be extended to the workers engaged by him. This notice marked Ex. Public Witness I/D was followed by reminders dated 24-8-76 Ext. Public Witness I/E and 10th September 1976 Ext. PW1/F. The notice and the aforesaid reminders failed to evoke any ressonse from the respondent as a result of which the inspecting officer was compelled to take recourse to the prosecution of respondent under Section 23 of the Act. In fact the whole case against the respondent has been put in a condensed form in the show-cause notice Ext. Public Witness 1/D wherein it has been conveyed to the respondent in most unambiguous terms that the workers engaged by him were performing the same and similar type of work as were being performed by the workers directly engaged by the principal employer M/s. Voltas Ltd. The attention of the respondent was clearly invited to condition No. 5 appearing in annexure appended to the licence bearing No. CIA/C/88/76 dated 4-2-76 and he was called upon to show cause as to why the benefits extended by the principal employer M/s. Voltas Ltd. to the workers directly engaged by it should not be extended to the workers engaged by him. It may however be noted that the respondent in pursuance of this notice and the reminders that followed did not raise any dispute that the workers engaged by him were not performing same and similar functions as were being performed by workers engaged by the principal employer. This dispute was for the first time raised on 1-12-76 after the case went 'to court and after he was summoned by the court.