Uttarakhand High Court
Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. And ... vs P.O., Labour Court And 20 Ors. on 23 August, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)IIILLJ533UC
Author: Prafulla C. Pant
Bench: Prafulla C. Pant
JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. This writ petition has been moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated May 21, 2001 and June 22, 2001 passed by Labour Court, Dehradun.
2. Brief facts of the case are that U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956. The respondent No. 3 to 21 are the persons who belong to Bhutpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam. There is no direct engagement of these 19 respondents with the petitioner; and the petitioners took work from these persons through the aforesaid Nigam. The said 19 respondents filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before Labour Court, Dehradun claiming certain payment of wages. Since these respondents were not workmen, their application under Section 33C(2) is alleged to be not maintainable under Section 33C(2) of the aforesaid Act. The petitioners have alleged that the Labour Court award against the petitioner is illegal on the ground that the liability to make the payment was with the Bhutpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam with whom the petitioner had agreement and the Nigam was the 'employer' for providing the necessary services. The petitioner has already paid amount of salary to the aforesaid Nigam in respect of Respondent No. 3 to 21. As such the petitioner filed a review application before the Labour Court against the order dated May 21, 2001. However, the review petition of the petitioner was rejected by the Labour Court on June 22, 2001. Hence this writ petition.
3. On behalf of the respondent No. 3 to 21 counter affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 13 in which it is stated that some of the workmen were not paid their salaries for which a Case No. 49 of 1995 was filed earlier which was decided against the petitioner against which the petitioner moved the Writ Petition No. 27937 of 1998 before Allahabad High Court but no interim order was passed therein. Consequently recovery of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was made from the petitioner by Collector on the basis of recovery certificate issued in pursuance of the Labour Court award in that case. Annoyed by the recovery, petitioner deducted the salary of the respondent No. 3 to 21 to compensate itself. Against the said act an application in question under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was moved by the answering respondents. After hearing the parties, Labour Court passed the impugned order dated May 21, 2001 and directed the petitioner as well as the Nigam to make payment of salary to the answering respondents. In the counter affidavit it is further stated that a review petition filed against the said award was also rightly rejected vide order dated June 22, 2001.
4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and that of respondent No. 3 to 21 at length. Bhutpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam did not contest the petition even after being served with the notices.
5. The short question for consideration before this Court is whether the award/orders in question passed by the Labour Court are bad in law as against the petitioner.
6. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the relationship of employer and employee does not exist between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 to 21, as such the proceedings before the Labour Court are bad in law. It is admitted to the petitioner that he had a contract with the Bhutpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam who provided the workmen to the petitioner. In view of the provisions of Section 21(4) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the principal employer is liable to make the payment to the workers if the contractor failed to make the payment, and he can recover the amount from the contractor. That being so the position of law, the impugned order dated May 21, 2001 and June 22, 2001 cannot be said to be against the law on this ground.
7. Second argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 gets attracted only when there is entitlement of payment to the workers. In reply to this learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 21 submitted that the petitioners have not challenged this fact, rather it is admitted that work was taken from the respondents No. 3 to 21. As such entitlement to salary cannot be questioned. I am in agreement with submission made on behalf of the respondents as factually it is incorrect to say that there was no entitlement.
8. Lastly, Sri Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to para 8 of the written statement submitted before the Labour Court that the petitioner had made the payment for salary of workers to Bhutpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam. As such the petitioner cannot be subjected to make the payment twice. Perusal of the impugned order dated May 21, 2001 shows that the order has been passed to make the payment to the workers as against both the petitioner as well as the Nigam. If the petitioner has to make payment twice it can very well recover the excess amount from the Bhutpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam and not from the workmen.
9. Before concluding the judgment it is pertinent to mention here that from the record it appears that during the pendency of this writ petition the impugned amount has already been recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, with the observations that if the petitioner feels that he had already made payment to Nigam in respect of salary for the disputed period of January to April 2000 earlier he can very well institute a suit for recovery of excess sum against the Nigam, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.