Central University of Jharkhand, through its Registrar, Dr. Shyam Narain, Son of Late Sheo v. 1. Union of India through the Ministry of Labour & Employment, office of the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(L) No. 7063 of 2012 Central University of Jharkhand, through its Registrar, Dr. Shyam Narain, Son of Late Sheo Bahal, having its office at Brambe, P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi Petitioner … … Versus 1. Union of India through the Ministry of Labour & Employment, office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), E- 191/Sector II/H.E.C. Colony, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi 2. M/s Cobra Industrial Security Force (P) Ltd., represented through its proprietor Sri Sunil Tiwari, having its office at Radium Road, Ashok Path, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 3. Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 4. Baleshwar Mahli, son of Sri Baldeo Mahali, resident of Village Jaher, P.O. Bargari, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 5. Binod Tigga, son of Late Saideo Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi
Legal Reasoning
6. Babli Kujur, son of Sri Shndeo Oraon, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 7. Deepak Oraon, son of Birsa Oraon, resident of village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 8. Dasrath Gope, son of Late Ganesh Gope, resident of village Jaher, P.O. Bargari, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 9. Bandhan Oraon, son of Bhanu Oraon, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 10. Hifjul Rahman, son of Samsad Ansari, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 11. Iltap Ansari, son of Basruddin, resident of Village Patratoli, P.O. Gurugani, P.S. Burmu, District Ranchi 12. Imtaj Ansari, son of Rahman Ansari, resident of Village Jaher, P.O. Bargari, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 13. Jainath Mahto, son of Magal Mahto, resident of Village Chud, P.O. Branbe, P.S. Mander, District Ranchi 14. Kali Oroan, son of Late Baju Oraon, resident of Village + P.O. Bijulia, P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi. 15. Kuresh Gope, son of Chheli Gope, resident of Village Jaher, P.O. Bargari, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 16. Nasim Ansari son of Jahur Ansari, resident of Village Pali, P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mander District Ranchi. 17. Purnima Kumari, daughter of Ganga Oraon, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, district Ranchi 18. Rambrit Mahli, son of Shibu Mahali, resident of Village Jaher, P.O. Bragari, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 19. Rupwanti Toppo, daughter of Ramnath Toppo, resident of village Chund, P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mander, District Ranchi 20. Ramlal Gope, son of Harakh Gope, resident of Village Jaher, P.O. Bragari, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 21. Ramu Tigga, son of Late Tilla Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 22. Rakesh Tigga, son of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 23. Sahdeo Mahali, son of not known to the petitioner, Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 24. Sunu Kujur, son of Chamra Kujur, resident of Village Patra Toli, P.O. Gurgai, P.S. Burmu, District Ranchi 25. Sohrai Gope, son of Parnu Gope, resident of Village + P.O. Bragari, P.S. Mander, District Ranchi 26. Sukhdeo Oraon, son of Budhu Oraon, resident of village Sevahdi, P.O. Bargari, P.S. Mander, District Ranchi 27. Vikram Oraon, son of Lakhan Oraon, resident of Village Tikra Toli, P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mander, District Ranchi 28. Ameet Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 29. Anil Oraon, son of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 30. Anmol Lakra, son of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 31. Bansanti Kumari daughter of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 32. Etwa Oraon, son of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 33. Gudu Lakra, son of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.Ο. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 34. Gopal Oraon, son of Somra Oraon, resident of Village Jaher, P.O. Bargari, P.S. Mander, District Ranchi. 35. Meri Tigga, daughter of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 36. Mahabir Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 37. Pintu Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 38. Roma Tigga, daughter of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 39. Rugna Oraon, son of Bandhu Oraon, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mander, District Ranchi. 2 40. Sanjeet Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 41. Sagar Lohra, son of Birsa Lohra, resident of Village Malkoti, P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mander, District Ranchi. 42. Suchita Santa Ekka, daughter of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 43. Sawitri Oraon, daughter of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + Ρ.Ο. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 44. Sushil Oraon, son of not known to the petitioner, represented through Ajay Tigga, son of Dominic Tigga, resident of Village + P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 45. Sukhdeo Oraon, son of Gopia Oraon, resident of Village Jaher, P.O. Bargari, P.S. Mander, District Ranchi … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Resp. No.2 For the Union of India --- : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Janak Kumar Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC --- 14/11.12.2024 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of order dated 20.06.2012 passed by learned Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi and Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in Claim Application No.(57)/2011 RLC (R) whereby and whereunder the petitioner and respondent no.2 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,93,498/- (OTS wages of Rs.1,25,538/-, difference of wages of Rs.25,960/- and compensation of Rs.42,000/-) with the Authority within 30 days from the date of issuance of order; And / or (ii) Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and appropriate for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an arrangement between the petitioner and the private respondent no.2, who was appointed as agency for providing security services and the petitioner has paid the entire amount to the agency as per the terms of agreement between the two. So far as the amount computed by the authority by virtue of the impugned order is concerned, the entire amount has been deposited before this Court. He submits that it has to 3 be determined as to how much the petitioner may have to pay and how much the private agency is required to pay. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private agency has submitted that the amount has been paid to the concerned security personnel as per the agreement and it appears that the amount so agreed upon was less than the minimum wages and consequently the assessment has been made. The petitioner being the principal employer is liable to pay the amount and the private respondent has nothing to do with the amount. He has also submitted that the amount can be directly remitted to the authority by this Court and certainly the amount would be paid to the concerned security personnel upon due identification. 5. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that some arrangement was made between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 for providing security services and a number of personnel were engaged. It is not in dispute that whatever was the arrangement between the petitioner and the private respondent, the same has already been paid to the private persons but during the inquiry, it was found that the amount which was payable to the concerned security personnel was not meeting the requirement of the minimum wages. Consequently, by the impugned order, the liability has been fastened upon the petitioner being the principal employer. 6. This Court after going through the impugned order finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The quantum and the manner of assessment is also not in dispute. The petitioner being the principal employer cannot deny its liability. Accordingly, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 7. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an amount of Rs.1,93,498/- has been deposited before this court by way of FDR. The amount deposited before this Court with accrued interest, if any, is directed be remitted to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Ranchi in the form of demand draft in favour of Accounts Officer, PAO, DGMS, Dhanbad. These details have been 4 provided by the learned counsel for the Union of India in the form of a letter no. High Court/Misc/2024 dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Ranchi and addressed to the learned counsel. A copy of the letter has been kept on the records of this case. If the maturity amount of FDR is in excess of any liability arising out of the impugned order, the differential excess amount be refunded to the petitioner upon filing of a representation. 8. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Ranchi shall remit the amount to the concerned security guards as per their entitlement upon due identification. 9. 10.
Decision
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. Saurav/- (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5