Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. On the back drop of these admitted facts, as mentioned hereinbefore, the only point that falls for determination in this case is as to whether either the State of Bihar or the respondent No. 7 or both of them should be held liable to pay the minimum wages to the workers employed by the respondent No. 7 for the aforementioned rate.

12. Mr. T. K. Prasad, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 contended that the State of Bihar having responsibility towards its workmen-citizens as a welfare state was bound to protect the workmen from exploitation and in that view of the matter inspite of terms or a contract to the contrary it had a bounded duty to pay to the concerned workmen directly or through the respondent No. 7 the minimum wages enhanced from time to time by reason of the notifications issued by the State of Bihar. The learned counsel, in this connection, has drawn our attention to the provision of Sub-section (2) and (4) of Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Rule 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) of Bihar Rules. The learned counsel has further drawn our attention to the provision of Section 25 of the Minimum Wages Act. It was submitted that in terms of the aforementioned provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and the rules framed thereunder and the Minimum Wages Act the State of Bihar was primarily responsible and is bound to discharge its function and statutory duty to disburse the wages to the workmen employed by it.