INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY SERVICES I PVT LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this appeal was filed by the appellant aggrieved by the orders of the Hon'ble Sri Justice RamaSwamy, as he then was, wherein his Lordship held that the 4th respondent being the principal employer and the appellant, a contractor under it as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, hereinafter called as 'the Act', is bound to pay the same wages that are being paid by the 4th respondent to the security guards directly employed by it under rule 25(v)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules) framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 35 of the Act. On a deeper consideration, we think it necessary to adjudicate the legality of the agreement entered into by the appellant-Company with the 4th respondent on 11 -12-1980 as modified from time to time and if it is found to by ultra vires, to apportion the liability between the appellant-Company and the 4th respondent for payment of the wages to the security guards supplied by the appellant-Company to the 4th respondent at par with the security guards directly employed by it.

(2.) The undisputed facts leading to filing of this case are that the 4th respondent-Corporation, which is an undertaking of the Government of India having secured the contract for execution of the civil and structural constructions for the Steel Plant at Balacheruvu at Visakhapatnam, applied to the Deputy- Commissioner of Labour, Visa'khaptanam in its letter No. GM/PO-35/VSP/75/4250 dated .10-10-1975 for registration as principal employer under the Act and also obtained registration certificate No. RD-26/75 dated 2-11-1975. Thereafter, having appointed very few security guards to prevent illegal , unauthorised entry and exit of men and material the 4th respondent entered into an agreement with the appellant for supply of more number of security guards, Head guards and shift incharge, at the monthly remuneration of Rs. 400/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 600/- respectively under the impugned agreement dated 11-12-1980.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the security guards directly employed by the 4th respondent, and the security guards supplied by the appellant were discharging the same or similar kind of work. But while the 4th respondent was paying higher wages to its employees under the guise of the impugned agreement, it was paying lesser amount to the security guards supplied by the appellant, which in turn was paying Rs. 317.77 to the security guard, Rs. 360.13 to the head guard and Rs. 359.46 to the Sergeant under various heads like salary, minimum bonus at 8.33%, employer's share of Provident Fund at 8.25%, leave relief at 8%, cost of uniforms at Rs. 30/-, retaining an amount of Rs. 82.23 in case of a security guard, Rs. 139.87 for a head guard and Rs. 240.54 to a Sergeant towards administration and supervisory charges. Subsequently, by mutual negotiations between the appellant-Company and the 4th respondent-Corporation, the wages payable to all these watch and ward staff used to be revised on the basis of notifications that were being issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act from time to time.