Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. In the order dated 28.7.1998 passed in this Petition, it was noted that the contract workers whose names were mentioned in Exhibit-D and numbering 67 were discontinued and 90 contract workers whose names were listed in Exhibit-E, their conditions of service were altered.

5. The respondents filed affidvit-in-reply on or about 31.8.1998 and denied the allegations that there was breach of the order passed by this Court on 23.3.1998 by any one of them in respect of 90 contract workers engaged through TMSS and 67 other contract workers. It specifically stated that the 67 contract workers were not in the employment as on 26.2.1998 or as on 23.3.1998 and infact, they were discontinued much prior to the said dates. So far as the contract workers engaged through TMSS are concerned, it was stated that there was no change in the terms and conditions of their service after the orders were passed by this Court and therefore, the Contempt Petition was required to be dismissed. It further stated that on any given date, TMSS had engaged only 54 workers out of the 90 workers on its roll in the establishment of respondent No. 1 and all the 90 workers were not engaged on any given day and this system of rotation was continued from 1.6.1998. It was further pointed out that pursuant to the tenders invited, the respondents had finalised a new agreement with TMSS for a period of one year i.e. from 1.12.1997 to 30.11.1998 and an amount of Rs.12.60 lakhs was already paid to the contractor towards this agreement. The affidavit further stated that the contractor had informed the respondents that the regular wages were being paid to all the concerned contract workers and some of the workers themselves were not willing to attend to their duties.

In response to this reply of the respondents, the Union filed a rejoinder on or about 25.11.1998 and alleged that there was discontinuation of all the contract workers engaged through TMSS and these workers were receiving on an average an amount of Rs.3400/-per month towards their salary in pursuant to the Settlement signed between the contractor and the Union. This Settlement was valid for a period of four years with effect from 1.7.1995, unless terminated by either party giving notice in writing as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rules made thereunder. The respondents filed additional affidavits on 11.1.1999, 1.2.1999 and consequently the Union filed rejoinder on 16.2.1999. The respondents filed yet another additional affidavit on or about 3.3.1999 and elaborately dealt with the issue of payment of wages to the contract workers engaged through TMSS. The respondents contended that towards the contract signed between respondent No. 1 and the contractor (TMSS) an amount of Rs.24,65,778/- was already paid to the contractor for payment of wages to the contract workers engaged by it from December, 1997 to November, 1998 and the contractor had from the said amount, disbursed by way of advance to the contract workers an amount of Rs.10,64,000/- while the balance amount of Rs.14,01,778/-was retained by the contractor. In addition, it was contended that even if the contract workers engaged through TMSS were required to be paid as per the purported agreement signed between the Union and the said contractor, the total amount of salary payable for the period from December, 1997 to November, 1998 would come to Rs.21,28,088/-as against the amount of Rs.24,65,778/-paid to the contractor. Thus, the respondents were not guilty of acting in breach of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5981 of 1997 and they had fully discharged their burden regarding payment of wages for the contract workers engaged through that Agency. It has been further stated by the respondents that the contract awarded to TMSS expired towards the end of November, 1998 and it had offered to the same agency its renewal at least for a period of two months but the same was not accepted by the contractor on the ground that the workers engaged by it were not inclined to accept the employment and therefore, the contract was awarded to M/s. Mini Engineering which also failed and therefore finally they engaged M/s. Krishna Enterprises. The new contractor addressed individual letters dated 10.12.1998 to each of the 90 workers to report for work immediately but none of them reported as intimated by the new contractor to the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 16.12.1998. The respondent No. 1 Management addressed a letter to the Petitioner-Union on 17.12.1998 informing about the refusal on the part of contract workers earlier engaged through TMSS. It also contended that on 5.1.1999 the respondent-Management again called upon each of these 90 workers to report for duty within three days from the date of receipt of the letter with M/s .Krishna Engineering but none responded.

20. The contract between the respondents and the TMSS signed on 29.11.1997 was made available for perusal and it was for the period from 1.12.1997 to 30.11.1998. It consists of three Annexures i.e. general terms and conditions, special terms and conditions and Scope of work-cum-schedule of rates.

Nowhere there is a mention regarding the rates of wages to be paid to the contract workers by the contractor though the value of the contract was estimated at Rs.39 lakhs. In Annexure-III (scope of work cum schedule of rates) rates for individual jobs have been set out. But from that also, it is not possible to derive the daily or monthly wages payable to each of the contract workers. It was also clarified in Annexure-II that requirement of contract workers was not of continuous nature but was need based and the contractor was to study the general pattern of the job requirement and arrange and distribute his labour as per the requirement as well as job orders.

21. The order passed by this Court on 23.3.1998 clearly implied that the contract workers who were in employment as on that day would be continued on the same terms and conditions. This would mean that the salary/wages and/or other benefits payable to each of these workers as on 23.3.1998 were protected and this order would not mean that the respondents were directed to pay the wages/salary to the contract workers. Section 21 of the Contract Labour Act states that the contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour. So far as the principal employer is concerned, it does not have the responsibility for disbursement of wages and Sub-section (3) of Section 21 clearly states that it shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure that disbursement of wages in the presence of authorised representative of the principal employer. The principal employer has to nominate the representative duly authorised to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and the said representative has to certify that the amounts paid as wages were as prescribed. In addition, the principal employer has to ensure that the rate of wages/salary paid to such contract workers is not less than the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and in case the contract labour is employed for jobs which are being done by permanent employees, the parity of wages is required to be maintained. In case, the contractor fails to make the payment of wages within the prescribed period or make short payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make the payment of wages in full or unpaid balance due as the case may be to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amounts so paid from the contractor either by deducting any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor.