SURJEET SHYAMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner seeks direction with respect to enforcement of Section 21 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter 'the Act'). He submits that IRCTC - fourth respondent, is engaged in contract labour and for that purpose, it licences agencies - in the present instance, it is known as a contractor. Such contractors are granted licences to employ workmen who in turn work in the establishment of the respondent. The petitioner relies upon provisions of the Act as well as an office memorandum (OM dated 23.01.2013) issued by the Ministry of Labour to say that every contractor is obliged to pay his workmen not only minimum wages but rate of wages of emoluments equivalent to what he is paid for identical or similar work, but who are hired by the employer on permanent basis. In support of his contention, the petitioner has relied upon a number of documents including queries issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment and questionnaire based thereon.

(2.) IRCTC which has filed its reply argues that the petitioner cannot seek reliefs or directions that he is claiming in these proceedings. It argues firstly that the employer-employee relationship subsists and the interface is only to ensure that the contractor complies with the terms.

(3.) Rule 25(iv) & (v) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (hereinafter 'Rule') obliged a contractor to ensure payment of amounts over and above the minimum wages if such emoluments are enjoyed by those working as permanent employees in the establishment which resorts to contract labour. Learned counsel also highlights the proviso to Rule 25(v)(a) to say that in the event of dispute or disagreement with reference to the amounts paid or the rate, such a disagreement would have to be first adjudicated by the concerned Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner or his nominee or delegate.