BATAKRUSAN PARIDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTED. Petitioners submit that they came to be engaged as labourers by respondentâ„¢s No. 7 who had undertaken to execute civil works for the benefit of respondentâ„¢s No. 1 to 6. It is submitted that respondents No. 7 namely Himalayan Construction Company, was entrusted with the work of cutting and covering of civil works of Tunnel No. 7 and 8 Embankments in approaches were also to be constructed. Some work regarding construction of bridges from 15.355 Kms to 18.050 Kms, was also to be done on Jammu Udhampur Rail Link Project. This work is said to have been allotted to respondent No. 7 on 26th Sept., 94. The petitioners who as indicated above, were engaged as labourers have not been paid their wages. They have approached this court seeking a direction that respondent -Union of India should be directed to pay them the wages out of the money which is payable to respondent NO. 7. It is also submitted that respondents are under a statutory obligation in their capacity as principal employer to see that the payment of wages which was supposed to be made in favour of the petitioners be made to them. The total amount which is stated to be payable to the petitioners is said to be Rs. 11,17,900. This amount is due to the petitioners as the wages from 1st March 97 to 27th May 97. Another amount of Rs. 4,12,500/ - is also said to be due for the month of June, July and August, 97. Thus, the case as projected by the petitioners is: i) That respondentâ„¢s No. 1 to 6 had allotted some civil works in favour of respondent No. 7 which was in connection with the project of Jammu -Udhampur Rail Link; ii) That they were engaged as labourers by respondent No. 7; iii) That respondent No. 1 to 6 being the .principal employers are responsible for making the payment in their favour in connection with the wages due to them. For this, reliance is being placed on Sections 20 and 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE Union of India and other official respondents have filed objections. It is submitted that the present petition involves disputed question of facts and these cannot be made the subject matter of adjudication in this petition. It is further submitted that the liability, if any, can be restricted to 123 labourers only. It is submitted that the licence was issued in favour of respondent No. 7 in terms of the aforementioned Act and this licence makes mention of 123 employees only. Beyond that, it is submitted that the official respondents are not supposed to make any payment. It is submitted that this petition has been filed at the instance of respondent No. 7. This respondent, as per the official respondents has deliberately verified the fictitious muster rolls, with a motive to create liability against the official respondents. On merits, it is not disputed that licence No. 46 (L -31) was issued on 19th January, 1995. This licence speaks of 123 labourers w.e.f. 6th September, 1996. It is accordingly submitted that the claim of 162 labourers cannot be made subject matter of challenge in this petition. In para 5 of the objections, it is specifically stated that the liability, if any, cannot be beyond 123 labourers. It is stated as under: ..It is once again submitted that if at all any payment is due, the liability being principal employer of the respondents is restricted to 123 labourers in all as per licence issued for the Contract labourers by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)...

(3.) IT is further submitted by the official respondents that after the contract with respondent No. 7 was brought to an end, no liability could be fastened on the official respondents. The fact that respondent No. 7 had preferred a writ petition bearing No. 419/97 against the termination of contract, is also adverted to in para 11 of the objections. It is submitted that this petition was dismissed on 24th July, 1997. A Letters Patent Appeal was also preferred. This was also dismissed. It is further submitted that the muster rolls which have been relied upon by the petitioners are fictitious. It is also stated that the official respondents have nothing to pay to respondent No. 7 and, as a matter of fact, they have to recover a sum of Rs. 2 Crores from respondent No. 7. With regard to the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, it is submitted that the principal employer is responsible to make payment of wages to bonafide contract labourers. If somebody has been employed unathorisedly, then the official respondents, it is submitted cannot be called upon to meet the liability.