LAWS(J&K)-1990-11-2

THAKUR AND CO Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Decided On November 29, 1990
Thakur And Co Appellant
V/S
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN amount of Rs. 27,450.39 is sought to be recovered from the petitioner -contractors vide the order impugned in the writ petition as the said amount was paid by the department -principal employer -to the labourers employed by the contractors in execution of the awards passed by the Asstt, Labour Commissioner against the petitioners. The main contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No. I was not competent to make the payment of the amount to the labourers under the contract agreement executed or under any provision of law. It is further submitted that the aforesaid amount cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue,

(2.) IN their counter -affidavit the respondents have submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as no fundamental or legal of right the petitioners was involved and the same was based on the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. The petition is also alleged to be suffering from unexplained delay and laches having been filed after 4 years from the date of the order impugned. It is admitted petitioner No. 1 was allotted the execution of the contract for which an agreement was executed between the parties, After starting the work on 11.11.1974, the petitioners did not take any interest in its execution within the time specified. Cl. (24) and (32) of the agreement executed between the parties authorised the respondents to make the payments of the labourers and recover the same as arrears payable to the department. The 3 labourers preferred the claims which were awarded vide Annexures Rf, RG & GH and were paid on demand to the concerned Court by the department by means of cheques issued as detailed in Para 4 of the counter. Under Sec. 21 (4) of the Labour Contract Act, a duty is cast upon the principal -employer to make the payment of such claims and recover the same from the contractor. The writ petition is stated to be misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.