Judgment:
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 3414 of 2010 Jitendra Nath Upadhyaya, son of Sri Krishn Jee Upadhaya, Director of M/s Aryan Service Ltd. atSushil Kunj, Haider Ali Road, Kokar, Ranchi834001, P.O. & P.S.Kokar, DistrictRanchi, resident of C/o Sri Sajan jee, near Line Hotel, Booty More, Ranchi ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi, E191, SectorII, HEC Colony, P.O. & P.S.Dhurwa, Ranchi… Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, Adv. For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, JC to GPI For RespondentUnion of India: Mrs. Nitu Sinha, C.G.C. Order No. 07 Dated: 29.08.2017 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 – Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948cum Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi in Claim Application No. (53)/2009RLC(R), whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 59,370 (Rupees fifty nine thousand three hundred seventy only), which includes the difference of wages and compensation in terms with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 with the said Authority within 30 days from the date of the order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a licensed contractor namely, M/s Aryan Services Limited, represented through its Director Sri Jitendra Nath Upadhyaya. The petitioner obtained licence on 16.12.2008 under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 and used to take work on contract basis from the indenting organisations. It is further submitted that the Labour Enforcement 2 Officer (Central), Dhanbad, Incharge, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Ranchi vide his application dated 6/11 November, 2009 filed a claim application under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 against the petitioner alleging less payment of wages to 5 workers (sweepers) amounting to Rs. 51,870/ along with copies of Inspection Note, Inspection Report, sanction order issued by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948cumRegional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi. It is alleged in the claim petition filed under Section 20 of the Act that the applicant during inspection dated 27.05.2009 physically recorded the statement of the workers in the premises of the Indian Institute of Natural Resins and Gums (formerly known as the Indian Lac Research Institute), Namkum, Ranchi. During the inspection dated 27.05.2009, the workers found working in the said Institute made statements before the applicant. Four workers signed the statements whereas one worker put his thumb impression on his statement. The learned counsel further submits that no such statement was recorded during the alleged inspection by the applicant as the said workers were not engaged by the petitioner as contract labourers, who claimed to have worked in the premises of the said Institute and as such, there is no question of making payment of difference of wages and compensation to the said workers. It is also submitted that the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 committed a serious error in passing the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 in holding that the said workers have been paid wages less than the minimum rate of wages notified under the Act. The said Authority also committed an error in holding that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 1500/ per worker as compensation. In fact, this inspection report filed along with the claim application itself is factually incorrect as the same does not bear any signature of the representative of the principal 3 employer/Institute in whose premises the said workers were allegedly found working by the applicant. It is also submitted that the principal employer was not made party in the proceeding under Section 20 of the Act and without his presence before the Authority, the matter should not have been adjudicated under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 makes the principal employer responsible for payment of wages to the contract labourers in full and if the said contract labourers have not been paid full wages, the difference of the same can be deducted from the amount payable to the contractor working under the principal employer. The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has not appreciated the matter in true perspective and has held the petitioner liable to make payment of the difference of wages as well as the compensation in terms with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and, therefore, the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 may be setaside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondentUnion of India while relying on the counteraffidavit submits that the petitioner being a contractor under the principal employer had obtained licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 as well as the Rules framed thereunder. As per Clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the licence, the petitioner was required to disburse wages to the contract labourers as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, but the petitioner deliberately avoided to disburse the minimum wages and, therefore, the applicant (the Labour Enforcement Officer) rightly filed claim application before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The statement of the petitioner that he did not employ the contract labourers on regular basis, is incorrect and misleading. The entire paymentsheets produced by the petitioner before the Authority are false and frivolous. It is also submitted that the statements of 4 the workers recorded at the work place clearly reveal the fact that the said contract labourers were not being paid the minimum wages by the petitioner. Though the petitioner has stated that he engaged the workers for 51 days during the period of October 2008 to April 2009, but the copy of the annual report as on 31.12.2008 submitted under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 by the principal employer i.e., Indian Institute of Natural Resins and Gums confirmed that the petitioner had engaged the workers for 365 days and, therefore, under the aforesaid facts, the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has rightly held the petitioner responsible for making payment of difference of wages and compensation under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, it appears that the factual and legal issues raised on behalf of the applicant as well as the petitioner were duly appreciated. It has been held inter alia that the copy of the wage register submitted by the petitioner was an afterthought and the same could not be accepted as the same was not found in conformity with the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 r/w Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 framed thereunder. It has also been observed by the Authority that the petitioner failed to submit the annual returns under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 r/w Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 and halfyearly returns under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 r/w Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. It has further been observed by the Authority in the impugned order that the statement of contract labourers recorded during the inspection clearly revealed the fact that they were employed by the petitioner and were being paid less wages than the notified rate of minimum wages. The 5 said contract labourers have been deprived of about 42% to 46% of their wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, it was the responsibility of the principal employer to make payment of difference of wages to the contract labourers if at all the petitioner had failed to make the minimum wages, is concerned, I find that the Authority in the impugned order has also dealt with the said issue. It has been held by the Authority that the petitioner was required to make payment in presence of the representative of the principal employer, however, copies of the register of wagescummuster roll submitted by the petitioner did not contain the certificate as required under Rule 73 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. The said fact shows that the payment made to the contract labourers as shown in the register of wagescummuster roll of the petitioner, has not been made in presence of any representative of the principal employer. After making the detailed factual and legal discussion, the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act reached a conclusion that the contention of the petitioner is not factually and legally acceptable. Consequently, the said Authority held the petitioner liable for payment of difference of wages along with compensation in terms with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 – Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948cum Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the same. 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No. 7009 of 2013 also stands dismissed. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish/A.F.R.