Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.36 seconds)
Hindustan Composites Limited ... vs Mumbai Shramik Sangh, Registered Trade ... on 22 June, 2007 cites

Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs Kalyani Steels Ltd. & Anr on 9 January, 2001

13. A perusal of the said section clearly discloses that a statutory liability for the payment of wages is not only on the registered contractor but is also on the registered employer which in this case is a petitioner company. It has to be noted that the workmen had not asked for a declaration that the contract which was entered into between the company and the licensed and registered contractor is sham and bogus but it has been alleged in the complaint that since the wages for the period from 1.6.91 to 30.11.91 having not been paid by the licensed contractor, it was a statutory liability of the registered employer to pay the said wages. In view of this averment made in the complaint, I am of the view that the complaint was maintainable under the MRTU and PULP Act. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the relationship of employer and employee between the workmen and the company. If the complaint had been filed alleging the existence of this relationship, possibly it could have been argued that the complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, the Industrial Court has correctly held that the judgments of the Apex Court in Kalyani Steels (supra), Cipla Ltd. (supra) and Steel Authority of India (supra) were not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the specific case of the Union is that 36 workmen were not allowed to work during the period from 1.6.91 to 30.11.91 though they were willing to work. No efforts were taken out by the company as agreed by them in the settlement to provide alternate work to these workmen. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the workmen had not worked during the said period and therefore, they were not entitled to claim wages for the aforesaid period. There is ample evidence and material on record to indicate that the workmen were not allowed to resume work in the canteen. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Verma, therefore, cannot be accepted. The ratio of the judgment on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent therefore, will squarely apply to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 106 - Full Document
1   2 Next