Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. The respondents further state that the petitioner has engaged sub- contractors to execute the contract work in the establishment of the principal employer. The sub-contractors engage contract labour who are working in the establishment of the principal employer. But there is no contractual obligation between the principal employer and the sub- contractor of the petitioner/contractor. Therefore, the petitioner/contractor is required to obtain licence in respect of all the contract labour engaged by them as well as engaged by their sub- contractors to establish relationship between principal employer and contract labour for enforcement of labour laws in respect of these poor unorganized contract labour. That engagement of subcontractors by the contractor resulting in distribution of the number of contract workers across several subcontractors does not and cannot extricate the contractor from the application of the Act.

2. Accordingly, no licence is required to be taken by MECON."

30. It has also been clarified therein that the Steel Plant is the "Principal Employer".

31. The petitioner‟s contention is that it does not employ 20 or more persons in the establishment and as the Sub-contractors engaged by them have employed the contractual workers herein, the petitioner claims that the relationship of Employer-Employee is between the Sub-Contractor and its‟ contract workers and, as such, the petitioner does not require to take any licence.

36. The sub-Contractors in this case have been engaged by the petitioner/contractor for carrying out different work/projects for the principal Employer.

37. It is the contention of the petitioner that as he does not employ more than 20 workers, he is not liable to take licence under the Act of 1970.

38. The contention of the petitioner is that the Sub-Contractors herein being included in the definition of the word "Contractor", are responsible and liable for the Contract workers, having engaged them and the petitioner even though a contractor as per the agreement has no responsibility, even though the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 makes it clear that the petitioner is the Contractor and the respondent no. 4 is the principal Employer.

39. Thus from the said facts it is apparent that the principal Employer recognizes only the "contractor" with whom he has an agreement and none else and as such the responsibility of the Sub-Contractors along with their contract workers becomes the responsibility of the Contractor/petitioner herein, because the said contract workers were engaged for the sole purpose of doing the work of the principal employer through a contractor/petitioner via a Sub-Contractor.