High Court
Legal Reasoning
18406.23WPIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 8406 OF 20231. Chief Engineer & Chief Administrator Command Area Development Authority, Garkheda, Aurangabad. 2.Superintending Engineer & Administrator Command Area Development Authority, Latur, Kavha Road, Latur.3. Executive Engineer Latur Irrigation Division No.1, Latur Sinchan Bhavan, Old Ausa Road, Latur.4. Executive Engineer Latur Irrigation Division No.2, Latur Sinchan Bhavan, Old Ausa Road, Latur.5. Sub-Divisional Officer Sub-Division No.5 Nilanga, Patbandhare Vasahat, Latur Road, Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Govt. of Maharashtra, Latur, Sadbhavana Nagar, Near Vijaya Gas Agency,Ausa Road, Latur.2.Siddheshwar Angad ShindeAge- 29 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Gunjraga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur3.Datta Angad ShindeAge- 31 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer 28406.23WPR/o-Gunjraga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur4.Rajkumar Shankare AntreddyAge- 35 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Aurad Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur5. Sanjay Vitthalrao KambleAge-42 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Aurad Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur6. Nabisab Chandsab MattigadeAge-45 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Aurad Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur7.Rajnikant Kishan KadamAge- 31 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Madansuri, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur8. Kuldeep Rajpal SaroleAge-29 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Madansuri, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur9. Ratnadeep Rajpal KadamAge-24 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Madansuri, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur10. Balaji Govindrao BiradarAge- 38 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Dhanegaon, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur11. Mukesh Govind NaikwadeAge-21 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Chinchudi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur12. Namdeo Vilas ShindeAge-24 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Helamb, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur13. Motiram Maroti Bhalke Age- 36 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer 38406.23WPR/o-Hosur, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur14. Madan Vitthal Kamble Age- 40 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Hosur, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur15. Kiran Shesherao Jadhav Age- 24 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Kanadi Borgaon, Tq. Dist. Latur16. Govind Mukinda MandkarAge- 36 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Kanadi Borgaon, Tq. Dist. Latur17. Gopal Ramdas Bhise Age-31 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Kanadi Borgaon, Tq. Dist. Latur18. Gautam Madhav Ghante Age-45 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Rajegaon, Tq. Dist. Latur19. Manesh Banku Survase Age- 38 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Rajegaon, Tq. Dist. Latur20. Yogesh Gautam Ghante Age-21 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Rajegaon, Tq. Dist. Latur21. Sanjay Vyankate Ujane Age- 38 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Kokalgaon, Tq. Dist. Latur..22. Datta Vitthalrao Ingale Age- 45 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Sarvadi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur23. Mahadeo Pandhari Panchal Age- 38 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer
Legal Reasoning
48406.23WPR/o-Limgala, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur24. Nivrutti Mahadu VithuboneAge- 40 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Limbala, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur25. Devanand Bhimrao AdsulAge- 35 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Takalgaon, Tq. Dist. Latur26. Sunil Panditrao ShindeAge- 36 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Takalgaon, Tq. Dist. Latur27. Ashirath Bhimrao AdsulAge- 26 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Takalgaon, Tq. Dist. Latur28. Shankar Shriram KadamAge- 37 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Tadola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed29. Ishwar Kashinath PrapateAge- 36 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Akola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed30. Shriram Bhagwan KadamAge- 52 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Tadola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed31. Daulat Kashinath KaradAge- 43 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Wangdari, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur32. Sudhakar Madhukar Jadhav Age- 35 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Wakadi, Tq. Dist. Latur33. Rajebhau Vitthal Jagtap Age-45 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer 58406.23WPR/o-Wakadi, Tq. Dist. Latur34. Ganesh Kisanrao Sontakke Age-35 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Adalgaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur35. Datta Manchak Kale Age-38 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Sindgaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur36. Sandeep Vyankat Kanse Age-25 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Sindgaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur37.Hanumant Digambar Pawar Age- 44 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Nagzhari, Tq. Dist. Latur38.Rasul Maheboob Pathan Age- 40 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Bhoisamudraga, Tq. Dist. Latur39.Ashok Hanumant Pawar Age-22 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Nagzhari, Tq. Dist. Latur40.Namdeo Baburao Kamble Age- 52 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Borvati, Tq. Dist. Latur41. Rahul Namdeo Kamble Age-30 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Borvati, Tq. Dist. Latur42.Vinod Subhash Mograge Age-32 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Shendh, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur43.Madhav Digambar Bhadarge Age-40 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer 68406.23WPR/o-Shendh, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur44.Prabhakar Bhaurao Sawant Age- 51 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Bindgiyal, Tq. Dist. Latur45.Aanal Maruf Shaikh Age- 45 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Bindgiyal, Tq. Dist. Latur46.Mahavir Anandrao Jadhav Age- 40 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Shivani, Tq. Dist. Latur47.Babasaheb Bhagwan Sirsath Age-51 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Shivani, Tq. Dist. Latur48.Suryakant Bhagwan Sirsath Age- 51 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Shivani, Tq. Dist. Latur49.Shivaji Bhimashankar Bharati Age- 30 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Babhalgaon, Tq. Dist. Latur50.Fattu Rajjak Shaikh Age- 35 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Babhalgaon, Tq. Dist. Latur51.Santosh Lingappa Dhumale Age- 41 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer R/o-Bhatangali, Tq. Dist. Latur52. Meghraj Narsingh KambleAge-35 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Bhatangali, Tq. Dist. Latur53. Rajkumar Rangrao BarcheAge- 55 Yrs, Occ: Service/Labourer 78406.23WPR/o-Bhatangali, Tq. Dist. Latur54. Aslam Mukram NaikwadeAge-28 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Aurad Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur55. Akram Mustafa PathanAge- 33 Yrs, Occ: Service/LabourerR/o-Aurad Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur56. Maharashtra Rajya Raste & Patbandhare Karmchari Sanghatana, Latur Through Constable Rajendra Sadashivrao Vihite Maharashtra Housing Society, Barshi Road, Latur, Tq. Dist. Latur.57. Chhatrapati Security Force Through Mr. Tatyasaheb Bhagwatrao Damale Age-Major, Occ: Business, Head Office : Borvati, Tq. Dist. Latur Office Address: Near Saibaba Mandir, Shivaji Chowk, Latur.58. Prithvi & Raj Multi Services Through Mr. Uddhav Shivaji Jadhav Age-Major, Occ. Business, R/o. Girvalkar Nagar, Barshi Road, Latur.59. Mr.Baban Umaji Dengale Age-Major, Occ.: Business, R/o. 1566/1, Madhav Baug, Parali, Tq. Parali, Dist. Beed. .. RESPONDENTS…Mr.Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.V.M.Chate, AGP for the respondent-State Mr.P.V.Barde, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 18, 20 to48, 50 to 56. Mr.V.S.Valse, Advocate for respondent no.59. ... 88406.23WPCORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :11.03.2024JUDGMENT : 1]By way of present Writ Petition, the petitionersare challenging the judgment and order dated 19.06.2023passed by the respondent no.1 – Assistant Commissioner ofLabour, Latur wherein the application filed by therespondent employees under Section 33-C (1) of IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 is allowed and the petitioners aredirected to make payment of difference of minimum wagesand actual salary paid to the respondent employees from 1stJanuary, 2022 to 22nd September, 2022 i.e. for 255 days, asstipulated in para no.23 of the impugned order along withinterest @ 6% per annum. 2]The judgment of the Assistant Commissioner ischallenged by the petitioners primarily on the ground ofjurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner to invoke jurisdictionunder Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act inabsence of any adjudication of claim by the competent 98406.23WPauthority. The point formulated by the learned counsel forthe petitioners for consideration in this case, is as under : Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial DisputesAct only deals with regards to the execution ofthe award. When in the instant case there is noadjudication of the liability of the respondent –employees, as such, invocation under Section33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal.Since there is no liability determined by theauthorities as constituted under the ContractLabour [Regulation and Abolition] Act, 1970 orany other authority, invocation under Section33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act isunlawful. Brief facts leading to filing the present petition can besummarized as under :3]The petitioner – Irrigation Departmentappointed contractor for supplying personnel for their 21barrages situated in Latur District on executing a labourcontract agreement, mentioning the period and other termsin the contract. Accordingly, respondent nos. 2 to 56worked for the petitioners through their contractor. The 108406.23WPrespondent nos. 2 to 56 – employees applied to therespondent no.1 Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Laturunder Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,claiming the difference of wages for the period from01.01.2022 to 12.09.2022 from the petitioner being theprincipal employer although there being no employeremployee relationship with the petitioner – IrrigationDepartment. On consideration of application, the AssistantCommissioner, directed the petitioners to make differenceof payment in terms of actual payment and minimumWages Act and directed the petitioners to payRs.66,68,146/- to the respondent employees. The same ischallenged in the present writ petition by raising twogrounds as under : 1.Whether the respondent no.1 AssistantCommissioner of Labour, Latur could haveinitiated proceeding under Section 33-C (1) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, withoutthere being any award of the Labour Court?2.Whether the respondent no.1 AssistantCommissioner of Labour, Latur failed toconsider the fact that the petitioners and theapplicants do not fall within the ambit of theemployer – employee relationship and whether 118406.23WPthe recovery certificate could have been issuedin the facts of the case ?4]In the course of arguments, the learned counselfor the petitioners pressed ground no.1 and contends thatunless there is adjudication of the right to receive paymentand if the right to receive the wages is disputed theapplication under Section 33-C (1) of the IndustrialDisputes Act is not maintainable. Alternatively, it issubmitted that there has to be an agreement to pay certainwages for entertaining application under Sectin 33-C (1) ofthe Industrial Dispute Act. It is only in execution of suchagreement, an application under Section 33-C (1) of theIndustrial Disputes Act is maintainable. The learned counselfor the petitioners submits that Section 33-C (1) of theIndustrial Disputes Act deals with the execution of theaward. When, in the instant case, there is no adjudication ofthe liability of the petitioner qua the respondent –employees, as such, invocation of Section 33-C (1) of theIndustrial Disputes Act is illegal. The learned counsel for thepetitioners further submits that since there is no liability 128406.23WPdetermined by the authorities as constituted under theContract Labour [Regulation and Abolition] Act, 1970 orany other authority, exercise of powers under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is unlawful. 5]The learned counsel for the petitioners reliedupon the judgments in the case of The Central Bank of IndiaLtd. Vs. P.S.Rajagopalan etc. reported in AIR 1964 SC 743and in the case of Garrison Engineer (Central), Delhi Cantt.Vs. M.J.Prasad and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del766. 6]Per contra, the learned counsel for therespondents submits that what is claimed is only thedifference between actual payment and minimum wagesAct and there is catena of judgments that the employees areentitled to get minimum wages under the provisions of theMinimum Wages Act and there can be no dispute for thesame. The State had appointed a Committee and therecommendation of the Committee are applicable to theemployees of the respondent – Association i.e. minimum 138406.23WPwages are applicable to the employees of the petitioner. Assuch, the learned counsel submits that there is no furtheradjudication required qua the payment that is to be made.He further submits that principal employer has to make thepayment of difference of wages and can also recover thesame from his contractor if the contractor has not made thepayment. For that purpose, the learned counsel has reliedupon Section 21 (4) of the Contract Labour [Regulation andAbolition] Act, 1970. The learned counsel for therespondents relies upon the judgment in the cases ofManganese Ore India Limited Vs. Chandi Lal Saha reportedin 1990 DGLS (SC) 637, in the case of Mr.V.V.Surya Rau Vs.Surendra Ramkrishna Tendulkar and anr. reported in 1997ALL MR (Cri) 1207, in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.Vs. Gangaramaiah and others reported in Law Finder Doc Id# 138790 = 2007 (5) SLR 785, in the case of CentralSecretariat Club Vs. Geetam Singh (Delhi) in W.P. (C)No.17474 of 2004, CM APPL No.13101 of 2004 and W.P.(C) No.19106 of 2005, dated 02.11.2017, in the case ofTularam Manikrao Hadge Vs. Sudarshan Paper Converting 148406.23WPWorks, Juni Mangalwari reported in 2020 DGLS (Bom.)848, in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. HindustanLever Employees Union and another reported in 2001 (3)Bom.C.R. 363 and in the case of Hindustan Composites Ltd.Vs. Mumbai Shramik Sangh & Anr. reported in 2007 (5)ALL MR 244. 7]The basic facts are not in dispute that thepetitioners are the principal employers and the employeesare the contract employees of the petitioners. This fact isnot disputed in the present writ petition. 8]Section 33-C (1) of Industrial Disputes Act,1947, reads as under : “33-C. Recovery of money due from an employer.-(1) Where any money is due to a workman froman employer under a settlement or an award orunder the provisions of [Chapter VA or ChapterVB], the workman himself or any other personauthorized by him in writing in his behalf, or,in the case of the death of the workman, hisassignee or heirs may, without prejudice to anyother mode of recovery, make an application tothe appropriate Government for the recovery ofmoney due to him, and if the appropriateGovernment is satisfied that any money is sodue, it shall issue a certificate for thatamount to the Collector who shall proceed torecover the same in the same manner as an 158406.23WParrear of land revenue : Provided that every such applicationshall be made within one year from the date onwhich the money became due to the workman fromthe employer : Provided further that any suchapplication may be entertained after the expiryof the said period of one year, if theappropriate Government is satisfied that theapplicant had sufficient cause for not makingthe application within the said period. 9]The Hon’ble High Court in the case of GarrisonEngineer (Central), Delhi Cantt. Vs. M.J.Prasad and othersreported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 766, while examiningscope of proceedings under Section 33-C (1) of theIndustrial Disputes Act, has held at para 34 as under : 34.Lastly, in so far as the arguments of theparties concerning the RLC’s powers to grantMACP/ACP benefits at all is concerned, it is tobe noticed that the application which was beingdealt with by the RLC who was acting as theRecovery Officer, was under Section 33C (1) ofthe ID Act, which deals with money due to aWorkman. Such an application does notcontemplate an adjudication or an enquiry beingheld as to whether the Workman is entitled tothe said benefits or not.10]It is held in the case of Garrison Engineer(Central) (supra) that the proceedings under Section 33-C 168406.23WP(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, RLC has limited power togrant MACP/ACP benefits. However, in that case, the Courtheld that RLC as Recovery Officer only deals with theimplementation of the award as granted by the Single Judgeand not adjudicating the question as to whether theworkman is entitled to MACP / ACP benefits. 11]In the cases of Manganese Ore India Limited Vs.Chandi Lal Saha reported in 1990 DGLS (SC) 637, theHon’ble Supreme Court held at para no.17 has held asunder :17.In the present case there was no disputeregarding the rates of wages and it is admittedby the parties that the minimum rates of wageswere fixed by the Government of India under theAct. The workmen demanded the minimum wages sofixed and the appellant denied the same to theworkmen on extraneous considerations. Under thecircumstances the remedy u/s. 20 of the Act wasnot available to the workmen and the LabourCourt rightly exercised its jurisdiction underS. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.12]The Karnataka High Court in the case of BharatEarth Movers Ltd. Vs. Gangaramaiah and others reported inLaw Finder Doc Id # 138790 = 2007 (5) SLR 785 has heldat para nos.11 to 13 as under : 178406.23WP11. The licence granted under the provisions ofCLRA Act before the Labour Court is produced asW. 3 and clause 4 of the said license reads asunder:"4. The rates of Wages payable to theworkmen by the contractor shall not beless than the rates prescribed for theSchedule of employment under the MinimumWages Act, 1948, and where the rates havebeen fixed by agreement, settlement oraward, not less than the rates fixed."12. By reading of this clause and also clause 4to the contract, makes it clear, that there isa contract between the petitioner and therespondent No. 122 for payment of minimum wagesto the contract labourer. The contractor underSect. 21 of the CLRA Act, is required to makethe payment of wages to all the contractlabourer and such payment has to be ensured bythe petitioner-Management by appointing/engaging a nominee or representatives in termsof Section 21(2) of the CLRA Act. Theobligation of the contractor is to see, thatthe wages as agreed are paid to the contractlabourer. What is important to note here is,that, if the contractor fails to make suchpayment within the prescribed time or makeshort payment, the liability is fixed on theprincipal employer to make the payment of wagesin full or unpaid balance due. By reading ofthese provisions, makes it clear that there isa dual obligation of the principal employer.One is that, the principal employer to ensurethat proper wages are paid to the contractlabourer and second in case, if there is afailure to make the payment of the wages interms of the contract to the contract labourer,the principal employer is liable to make thepayment, and recover the same from thecontractor.13. If the principal employer is statutorilyliable to make the payment of the contractLabourer, then the amounts due to the contractlabourer becomes the statutory liability, andit becomes legally recoverable due. 188406.23WP 13]The Bombay High Court in the case of TularamManikrao Hadge Vs. Sudarshan Paper Converting Works,Juni Mangalwari reported in 2020 DGLS (Bom.) 848 hasheld at para no.28 as under:28. Thus from the above referred judgments itis clear that, the scope of sub-section (2) ofSection 33-C is wider than that of sub-section(1) and the sub-section is not confined tocases arising under an award, settlement orunder the, provisions of chapter VA. Furthermore if there is no dispute as to rates betweenthe employer and the employee and the onlyquestion is whether a particular payment at theagreed rate is due or not, then Section 20 (1)of the Minimum Wages Act would not be attractedat all, and the appropriate remedy would onlybe either under section 15 (1) of the Paymentof Wages Act, 1936, or under Section 33-C (2)of the Industrial Disputes Act. 14]Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is notin dispute that the minimum wages are applicable to thepetitioners as can be seen from the letter dated 27.06.2022written by the Executive Engineer, Latur IrrigationDepartment, No.1, Latur to the Chhatrapati Security Forces,Latur, is as under : उपरोक्तवि(cid:7)षयान्(cid:7)येयावि(cid:7)भागांतग(cid:17)तमांजरा(cid:7)तेरणानदी(cid:7)र असलेल्याएकूण21 बंधा- याच्यादेखभाल(cid:7)दुरुस्तीसाठीमाहेजाने(cid:7)ारी2022 तेमार्च(cid:17)-2022 याकाला(cid:7)धीतमजूरपुर(cid:7)ण्यार्चेकामई-विनवि(cid:7)दा पध्दतीनेमे. छत्रपतीसिसक्युरीटीफोस(cid:17), लातूरयांनाप्राप्तझालेलेआहे. सदरकामार्चेअंदाजपत्रकहेजलसंपदावि(cid:7)भागार्चीसामाईकदरसुर्चीसन2021-22 (cid:7)ापरुनतयारकरण्यातआलेलेहोते.
Decision
198406.23WP उपरोक्तसंदभ6यपत्रक्र. 7 मध्येआपणसहाय्यककामगारआयुक्त, लातूरयांनीविकमान(cid:7)ेतनअधिधविनयम1948 च्यातरतुदीच्या अनुषंगानेमहाराष्ट्रदुकाने(cid:7)व्यापारीआस्थापनाअद्योगातीलकामगारांसाठी अनुज्ञेयअसलेल्याविकमान(cid:7)ेतनदरकळवि(cid:7)लेआहेत. परंतुसंदभ6यपत्रक्र. 8 अन्(cid:7)येमहाराष्ट्रराज्यरस्ते(cid:7)पाटबंधारेकम(cid:17)र्चारीसंघटनायांनी यावि(cid:7)भागाससदरीलदरहेलागूहोतनाहीतयाअनुषंगार्चेपत्रया वि(cid:7)भागासविदलेलेआहे. त्यामुळेत्यांर्चेथकीत(cid:7)ेतनल(cid:7)करातल(cid:7)करत्यांनाअदा करण्याच्यादृष्टीनेसहाय्यककामगारआयुक्त, लातूरयांनाउपरोक्तविकमान (cid:7)ेतनदरहेयावि(cid:7)भागाच्याअधिधपत्याखालीलबंधा- या(cid:7)रदेखभाल(cid:7) दुरुस्तीसाठीकंत्राटदारामाफ(cid:17)तविनयुक्तमजूरांनालागूआहेतकिंक(cid:7)ाकसे? याबाबतमाग(cid:17)दर्श(cid:17)नकरा(cid:7)ेअसेपत्रपाठवि(cid:7)लेहोते. त्याअन्(cid:7)येसंदभ6यपत्रक्र. 10 अन्(cid:7)येविनदHर्शीतकेल्याप्रमाणे आपणजलसंपदावि(cid:7)भागाच्यादरभुर्ची2021-22 प्रमाणे(cid:7)ेतनअदाकरणे योग्यराहीलअसेकळवि(cid:7)लेआहे. त्यामुळेआपणसंबंधीतया(cid:7)रील मजूरांर्चे(cid:7)ेतन5 विद(cid:7)सातअदाकरुनतसाअह(cid:7)ालयावि(cid:7)भागाससादर करा(cid:7)ाअन्यथाआपणावि(cid:7)रुदधविनवि(cid:7)देमध्येनमूदकामाच्यावि(cid:7)र्शेषअटी(cid:7) र्शत6नुसारआपलापर(cid:7)ानाकाळयायादीमध्येसमावि(cid:7)ष्ठकरण्यार्चीएकतफK प्रविक्रयायाकाया(cid:17)लयामाफ(cid:17)तप्रस्तावि(cid:7)तकरण्यातयेईलयार्चीगांभिभयानेनोंदघ्या(cid:7)ी15]In view of the above letter, the petitioner’sContractors are liable to pay the respondent employeesminimum wages and in the event the contrators fail to makepayment, then, under Section 21 (4) of the Contract Labour[Regulation and Abolition] Act, 1970, the petitioners areliable to make the payment as principal employer andthereafter may recover the same from the Contractor. Onceit is held that the petitioners’ contractor are liable to makepayment of the minimum wages to the respondentemployees, there can be no further adjudication of any 208406.23WPclaim and an application under Section 33-C (1) of theIndustrial Disputes Act is maintainable to recover the duesin absence of any settlement. There is no furtheradjudication required. The principal employer / contractoris only to pay difference between the actual payment andthe minimum wages applicable to the labourers. As such,there is no interference in the impugned order. Hence, thepresent Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioners to makethe payment as directed by the Assistant Commissioner[respondent no.1] within 4 weeks from the date ofuploading this order. 16]In view of dismissal of writ petition, pendingcivil application does not survive and the same standsdisposed of accordingly. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC