1987 (3) TMI 531 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Entitlement to equal wages for contract labour.
3. Liability of principal employer for payment of wages.
4. Impact of previous Central Government decision on maintainability of the claim.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The petitioner argued that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the right of respondents to claim wages equal to regular employees under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, however, held that it could inquire into the existence of the right to claim a benefit in terms of money, provided the right was not the subject matter of an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Act. The Labour Court concluded that since the dispute did not require a reference under Section 10(1), it could proceed with the computation of benefits.

2. Entitlement to Equal Wages for Contract Labour:
The respondents claimed wages equal to those of regular employees under the principle of "equal pay for equal work." The Labour Court found that the respondents performed the same type of work as regular employees. Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, mandates that contract workers performing similar work as regular employees should receive the same wages. The petitioner did not dispute the similarity in work. Therefore, the Labour Court held that the respondents were entitled to equal wages.

3. Liability of Principal Employer for Payment of Wages:
The petitioner contended that the claim for wages should be against the contractor, not the principal employer, as there was no direct master-servant relationship. The court referred to Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which holds the principal employer liable for wage payment if the contractor fails to pay. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Thozhilali Union, which established that the principal employer is liable for wages even if intermediaries are involved. Thus, the petitioner, as the principal employer, was held responsible for paying the respondents' wages.

4. Impact of Previous Central Government Decision on Maintainability of the Claim:
The petitioner argued that a previous decision by the Central Government, which refused to refer the termination dispute for adjudication, estopped the respondents from filing the application under Section 33C(2). The court found that the previous decision did not affect the respondents' right to claim wages. Additionally, the respondents had challenged the Central Government's refusal in a separate writ petition, which was still pending. Therefore, the court held that the application under Section 33C(2) was maintainable.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed with costs, affirming the Labour Court's order that the respondents were entitled to equal wages as regular employees and that the petitioner, as the principal employer, was liable to pay these wages. The court emphasized the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and the statutory obligations under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.