The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRP No.04 of 2014 (An application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) …. Petitioner M/s. New Consolidated Construction Co. Ltd., representation through Sri Sagar M. Choukee Engineer Billing and Contracts, Rahimtola House-7 Homij Street, Mumbai-400001 -versus- Nakula Biswal(dead) and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case:- For Petitioner For Opposite Parties : : Mr. Basudev Mishra, Advocate Mr. Anupam Rath, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :19.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5/18/23 of 13/12/11 under Page 1 of 18 Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khurda. 2. The petitioner in this revision, i.e., M/s. New Consolidated Construction Co. Ltd. was the Opposite Party No.3 in CMC No.100 of 2009 in the court of learned S.D.J.M, Khurda and respondent no.3 before the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.5/18/23 of 13/12/11. The Opposite Party No.28 in this revision was the sole petitioner in CMC No.100 of 2009 and he was the Respondent No.5 in Criminal Appeal No.5/18/23 of 13/12/11. The Opposite Party No.27 in this revision was the Opposite Party No.4 in CMC No.100 of 2009 and Respondent No.4 in Criminal Appeal No.5/18/23 of 13/12/11.
Legal Reasoning
3. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the Assistant Labour Officer-cum-Inspector(Kubera Behera, Petitioner in CMC No.100 of 2009) under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, he(Kubera Behera) filed a complaint vide CMC No.100 of Page 2 of 18 2009 under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 against the Opposite Parties thereof stating that, one labour contractor, namely, Nabin Biswal had engaged 26 numbers of workers(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision) through its principal employer i.e., Opposite Party No.4 in CMC No.100 of 2009 for doing works at the work site, i.e., Gerra Green Villa at Pune at the rate of Rs.120/- per day for each worker for their eight hours work and the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision, i.e., the workers had worked there since 26.08.2007 to 21.01.2008. For their such works there, the workers(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in the revision) were paid some wages, but, their arrear wages were not paid by the Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009 as well as Nabin Kumar Biswal. For which, they(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision) made a written complain before the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Inspector, Balugaon stating about the non-payment of their arrear wages to the tune of Rs.5,82,795/- in total by the Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009. The said matter was enquired by the Assistant Labour Officer-cum-Inspector, Kubera Behera (petitioner in CMC No.100 of 2009) and he(Assistant Labour Page 3 of 18 Officer-cum-Inspector) made correspondences with the Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009. In response to the said correspondences, the Opposite Party No.1 in CMC No.100 of 2009, i.e., Sr. Project Manager of the Opposite Party No.3 of that CMC No.100 of 2009 replied through a letter stating that, the workers(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision) may not be able to get more than 20% of their claimed amount. The Opposite Party No.4 in CMC No.100 of 2009 (who is the principal employer) wrote a letter on dated 08.08.2008 stating that, Nabin Biswal is legally and contractually responsible for necessary payment to the workmen(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision), but, not the Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 in CMC No.100 of 2009 issued an another letter to the petitioner in CMC No.100 of 2009 stating that, only Rs.60,000/- is due against the said Opposite Parties in CMC, but, not more than that. For which, after making enquiry, the petitioner in CMC No.100 of 2009(Assistant Labour Officer-cum-Inspector) came to a conclusion that, the Opposite Parties of CMC No.100 of 2009 are liable for payment of the arrear wages of the workers(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision) to the Page 4 of 18 tune of Rs.5,82,795/- for their works done by them for the period from 26.08.2007 to 21.01.2008 on being engaged by Opposite Party No.4 in CMC No.100 of 2009. Therefore, the Assistant Labour Officer-cum-Inspector filed a complaint vide CMC No.100 of 2009 before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936-cum-Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda as per Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 praying for directing the Opposite Parties of that CMC No.100 of 2009 to pay the held up wages, i.e., Rs.5,82,795/- of the workers(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision) in total along with compensation. 4. Having been noticed from the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda in CMC No.100 of 2009, the Opposite Party Nos.2, 3 and 4 were set ex parte. The Opposite Party No.1 thereof filed his written show-cause denying the allegations alleged in the complaint regarding the engagement of the workers(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision) by the Opposite Party No.4 through Labour Contractor Nabin Biswal stating that, the Labour Contractor, Nabin Biswal had/has no valid license to engage any labourer. Opposite Party No.4 in CMC No.100 of 2009 had never permitted any Labour Contractor for engaging the Page 5 of 18 labourers(workers). For which, the Opposite Parties are in no way responsible or liable for the payment of the so-called claimed amount of the workers(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision). If the workers(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision) are entitled to get anything, the same will be paid by Nabin Biswal, but, not by the Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 in CMC No.100 of 2009 prayed for the dismissal the CMC No.100 of 2009 filed by the complainant(Assistant Labour Officer-cum-Inspector). 5. During the enquiry of CMC No.100 of 2009 before the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, in order to substantiate the claim of the petitioner against the Opposite Parties on behalf of the workers, he(complainant in CMC No.100 of 2009) examined him as P.W.5 and also examined some of the workers as P.Ws.1 to 3 including Nabin Biswal(labour contractor) as P.W.4 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 10. Whereas, without adducing any evidence from the side of the contesting Opposite Party No.1 in CMC No.100 of Page 6 of 18 2009, a document vide Ext.A was marked on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. 6. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, evidence and documents available in the record, the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda dismissed to the CMC No.100 of 2009 as per its judgment dated 03.08.2011 assigning the reasons that, “No agreement between the so-called Labour Contractor(Nabin Biswal, P.W.4) and Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 was proved for the engagement of the Labourers and Nabin Biswal had no authority to engage the labourers and no document has been proved for the engagement of the workers by the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 to work at the work site, i.e., Gerra Green Villa at Pune since 26.08.02007 to 21.01.2008. For which, the complainant has failed to substantiate that, the workers are liable for payment of their claimed delayed wages from the Opposite Parties.” 7. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid dismissal of CMC No.100 of 2009 passed on dated 03.08.2011 by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda, the workers(claimants) challenged the said dismissal order passed in CMC No.100 Page 7 of 18 of 2009 preferring an appeal under Section 17 of The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 vide Criminal Appeal No.5/18/23 of 13/12/11 being the appellants arraying the petitioner and Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009 as respondents. 8. After hearing from the learned counsels of both the sides, the learned appellate court allowed that Criminal Appeal No.5/18/23 of 13/12/11 of the workers(appellants thereof) under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and set aside to the judgment dated 03.08.2011 passed in CMC No.100 of 2009 by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda and made the Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009 liable for payment of the claimed delayed wages of the workers, i.e., Rs.5,82,795/- within thirty days hence, to be distributed among the workers(appellant in Criminal Appeal No.5/18/23 of 13/12/11) through Assistant Labour Officer- cum-Inspector, under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as per the judgment dated 30.09.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khurda assigning the reasons that, Page 8 of 18 “the letters issued by the Opposite Parties vide Exts.6 and 7 in CMC No.100 of 2009 to the petitioner in CMC No.100 of 2009 are going to show that, Opposite Party No.4 in CMC No.100 of 2009, (the Principal employer) had engaged labourers(appellants in the said appeal) to work at the works site, i.e., Gerra Green Villa at Pune and they had worked there at the work-site, i.e., Gerra Green Villa at Pune since 26.08.2007 to 21.01.2008. For which, the findings and observations made by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda in CMC No.100 of 2009 that, there is no material or document in the record to establish that, the workers (appellant nos. 1 to 26) were engaged through the Opposite Parties to work since 26.08.2007 to 21.01.2008 cannot be acceptable under law.” 9. On being aggrieved with the said judgment dated 30.09.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khurda in Criminal Appeal No.5/18/23 of 13/12/11, M/s. New Consolidated Construction Company(Opposite Party No.3 in CMC No.100 of 2009) challenged the same by filing this revision being the petitioner against the workers arraying them as Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 along with the Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009 as other Opposite Parties. Page 9 of 18 10. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
Legal Reasoning
petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26(workers). 11. During the course of hearing of this revision, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26(workers) contended that, this revision filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment passed in the appeal under Section 17 of The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is not entertainable under law. 12. In order to nullify/defeat the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision between Rameshwar Lal and another vrs. Jogendra Das : reported in AIR 1970 Orissa-76(D.B.), wherein, it has been held that, after an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment and Wages Act, 1936, a revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 before the High Court is entertainable under law to challenge the same. Because, the appellate authority under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is a court, but, Page 10 of 18 the authority under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is not a court but a persona designata.” 13. So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it cannot be said that, this revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. 1908 filed by the petitioner(Opposite Party No.3 in CMC No.100 of 2009) challenging the judgment passed in an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.5/18/23 of 13/12/11 under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act is not entertainable under law. For which, this revision filed by the petitioner is entertainable under law for its adjudication in order to ascertain the sustainability and justifiability of the impugned judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.5/18/23 of 13/12/11 under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 14. Exts.6 and 7 are the undisputed documents/letters, those were issued by the Opposite Party No.1 in CMC No.100 of 2009 to the petitioner in CMC No.100 of 2009, i.e., Assistant Labour Officer-cum-Inspector, Balugaon, while he was enquiring into the matter. Page 11 of 18 In Ext.6, it has been specifically indicated by the Opposite Party No.1 that, “Unfortunately, we did not agree about the figures, which given by him. Actually, the workers might be exaggerating the matter before you. Ours is a company believe in legal machinery and clean matters and therefore our payments are made by cheques and accordingly, the claimed amount may not be more 20% than the quoted amount. Actually, Nabin Biswal is the main culprit. As Nabin Biswal and his gang left the sight without intimating the authorities and without taking permission, for which, due to the careless behavior of Nibin Biswal, company could not complete the targeted works and the company forced to receive heavy losses. We are surprised to note that, we never receive a complaint till today in writing what are the exact demands and how we are coming into the picture. We would like to clear here that, we do not want to escape from the responsibility, but, at the same time, we should not be punished unnecessarily for the matter, in which, we are not responsible.” Page 12 of 18 15. In the letter vide Ext.7 issued by the Opposite Party No.1 in CMC No.100 of 2009 to the petitioner in CMC No.100 of 2009, the Opposite Party No.1 has specifically admitted about the works done by the workers on being engaged by the Opposite Party No.4 in CMC No.100 of 2009 stating that, “he had advised as per its letter dated 04.07.2008 to settle the alleged claim of the workmen engaged by them to carry out the works. M/s. NCCL(petitioner in this revision) was legally and contractually responsible to pay the legitimate unpaid dues of the workmen employed by them. Therefore, he had requested to impress upon M/s. NCCL for necessary payments as may be legally and contractually due well before joint enquiry, which is scheduled on 20.08.2008.” The aforesaid undisputed letters vide Exts.6 and 7 issued on behalf of the Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009 are going to show that, the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision, i.e., workers were engaged by the Opposite Parties through the principal employer, i.e., Opposite Party No.4 in CMC No.100 of 2009 at the work site, i.e., Gerra Green Villa at Pune, but, they(workers, Opposite Party Page 13 of 18 Nos.1 to 26 in this revision) have not been paid their wages by the Opposite Parties. 16. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is a beneficial piece of legislation. The weaker Section, i.e., workmen cannot be denied their legal entitlement applying the technicalities, while adjudicating the claim applications. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has been enacted to ensure that, the wages of the workmen are to be disbursed by the employers without delay. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Smt. Parvathamma vrs. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Department of Forest and Environment, Aranya Bhavan, Malleshwaram, Bangaluru decided on dated 04.01.2022 in Writ Petition No.8730 of 2016(L-MW) that, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 being a beneficial piece of legislation, the weaker section i.e., the Workmen cannot be denied the legal entitlement by applying technicalities, while adjudicating the claim applications. (ii) In a case between Dhanji Ram Sharma vrs. Union of India and another : reported in 1960 SCC Online (Punj)-194 that, the beneficient provisions, like those of the Payment of Wages Act, call for liberal and broad interpretation, so that, the real purpose, Page 14 of 18 underlying such enactment, is achieved and full effect is given to the principles underlying such legislation. 17. When, it is held above that, the Opposite Party No.4 in CMC No.100 of 2009, i.e., the principal employer has availed the services of the workmen, i.e., Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision and they(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26) had worked under the Opposite Parties for the period from 26.08.2007 to 21.01.2008, then at this juncture, even if, it will be held that, the so-called contractor, Nabin Biswal had no authority or license to engage them(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision), still then, all he Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009 including the principal employer cannot be absolved from their liabilities to pay the unpaid wages(delayed wages) of the workmen(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision). Because, non-payment and delay in payment of wages of the workers by the Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009 after being benefited from their works shall amount to unjust enrichment of the Opposite Parties. 18. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- Page 15 of 18 (i) In a case between Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. vrs. The Commissioner of Labour and others : decided on 03.09.1996 in Appeal (Civil) Case No.11355 of 1996(S.C.) that, as per Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, in case, the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or make short payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be to the contract labour employed by the contract and recover the amount so paid, from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor. (ii) In a case between the Workmen of best and Crompton vrs. The Management of best and Crompton : reported in 1985 ILLJ-492(Madras) at Para-13 decided on 08.11.1984 that, when management availed services of the workers on being engaged by an unlicensed contractor, that would be a result that, there was an implied contract between the management and workers and when they did works allotted to them, they would be paid their respective wages. (iii) In a case between Gobinda Lal Sen and others vrs. Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and others : reported in 2002(2) L.L.N.-559(decided on 19.02.2002)(Calcutta) at Para No.14 that, the payment of wages Act, 1936 Sections 15(2), 15(3), 15(4), 16 and 17—The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is a beneficial legislation, for the workmen. The Act was enacted to ensure that, the wages payable to employees Page 16 of 18 covered by the Act are disbursed by the employers within the prescribed time limit. 19. Here, in this matter at hand, when it is established that, the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision had worked under the Opposite Parties in CMC No.100 of 2009 including the Opposite Party No.4 since 26.08.2007 to 21.01.2008 and they have not been paid their arrear wages, i.e., Rs.5,82,795/- in total, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the workers(Opposite Party Nos.1 to 26 in this revision) cannot be denied to get their unpaid/delayed wages as awarded by the appellate court. For which, the judgment passed by the learned appellate court in Criminal Appeal No.5/18/23 of 13/12/11 cannot be held as unreasonable. Therefore, the question of interfering with the same through this revision filed by the petitioner(Opposite Party No.3 in CMC No.100 of 2009) does not arise. 20. As such, there is no merit in this revision. The same must fail. Page 17 of 18 21. In result, this revision filed by the petitioner(Opposite Party No.3 in CMC No.100 of 2009) is dismissed on contest. 22. Hence, this revision filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 23rd of December, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. (A.C. Behera) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 27-Dec-2025 15:04:47 Page 18 of 18