L. NARASIMBA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, Cement Corporation of India Limited, challenges the Award of the Labour Court, Anantapur, dated 18-6-1990 in a batch of cases filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brief the ID Act ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner runs a cement factory at Yerraguntla in Cuddapah district. As part of its activity, it awarded a labour contract to the 3rd respondent, a labour contractor. The 3rd respondent, in turn, has engaged respondents 4 to 222 (for brief the contract labour ) for doing various kinds of jobs assigned to them.

( 3 ) THE contract labour moved the Labour Court, 1st respondent herein, by filing applications under Section 33c (2) of the ID Act claiming that the Cement Industry Wage Board has prescribed rates of wages to be paid to various categories of employees working in the cement industry and that their contractor, the 3rd respondent herein, and the principal employer, the petitioner herein, were not paying the wages as per the said wage award. They relied upon the provisions of Section 21 (4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 (for brief the CL Act ). According to them, inasmuch as the 3rd respondent failed to pay the wages as per the wage award, the petitioner is under obligation to pay the difference of the wages as required under Section 21 (4) of the CL Act.

( 4 ) THE petitioner filed a counter and resisted the plea of the contract labour on several grounds. They disputed the existence of the relationship of the employer and the employee and also the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to entertain the applications. The applicability of the wage award was also denied by the petitioner. Another contention that was raised is that the contract labourers are not entitled to enforce their rights against the principal employer, by initiating proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act.

( 5 ) THE 1st respondent discussed all the aspects of the matter at length. During the course of the evidence, it emerged that the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner admitted the existence of the wage award providing for rates of wages in the cement industry and also the fact that the contract labourers were engaged in their industry. Discussion as to whether the contract labour should be treated as part of the establishment and whether they are entitled for the same wages as are paid to the regular employees was also undertaken. On being satisfied that the contract labour were not paid the wages at the rates stipulated in the wage award, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order in exercise of its powers under Section 21 (4) of the Contract Labour Act and directed the petitioner to pay the difference of wages.

( 6 ) SRI P. Nageswar Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act can be instituted only by a Workman of an Industry and since the contract labour do not come within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the ID Act, the 1st respondent did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the applications at all. On merits also, he submits that the contract labour failed to establish the factum of their having been engaged during the disputed period. It is stated that all the contract labour cannot be said to have been engaged for the entire period uninterruptedly and the grant of relief without verification of these facts was improper. He further claims that the dispute as to the payment of wages between the management and the workers were settled for some period and the wage award issued by the 1st respondent covered that period also. He relied upon several judgments in support of his contentions.

( 7 ) SRI G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the contract labour, on the other hand, submits that once the wage award provided for payment of wages at a particulate rate, it was not open either to the petitioner or the 3rd respondent to extract the work by paying the wages at a lower rate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document