The responsibility for payment of wages to contract workers lies with the contractor, but the principal employer is liable to make payment in case of the contractor's failure, and may recover the same from the contractor.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner is a registered Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and represents mainly the contract labourers employed under the Respondent No. 1. It had filed Writ Petition No. 5981 of 1997 against the respondent No. 1 for Abolition of Contract labour System prevailing under it in respect of the contract workers numbering about 276. It had also prayed for directions not to remove any of these contract workers during the pendency of the main petition.

( 2 ) BY an order dated February 26, 1998 passed in W. P. No. 5981 of 1997, a Division bench of this Court issued ad interim directions against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the said petition not to terminate the services of the employees described at Exhibit-A to the petition and who may be working as on that date. On March 23, 1998 when Writ Petition no. 5981 of 1997 came up for hearing on admission, another Division Bench granted rule and disposed of the petition by making rule absolute in terms of the following order:"1. The respondent No. 3 Union of India is directed to refer the question of abolition of contract labour in respect of the work performed by the employees listed in exhibit-A to the petition. The said reference shall be made within four weeks from today. 2. The Central Advisory Board is directed to hear the representative of parties hereto and submit their report to the Central government within three months from the date of the reference under clause (1) above. 3. The Central Government is directed to take decision under Section 10 of the contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) act, 1970 in respect of the work performed by persons, list in Exhibit-A hereto within four weeks from the date of receipt of the report of the Central Advisory Board. 4. Till the decision is taken as directed above, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall not remove the persons presently in employment and mentioned in Exhibit-A hereto and shall continue them in. employment on the same terms and conditions. However, this restriction shall not apply in case of misconduct, violent conduct or any other similar reasons. "

( 3 ) IT further appears that the Union had moved Writ Petition Nos. 5979 of 1997, 5983 of 1997 and 5985 of 1997 for the house keeping contract workers and security/watchmen employed on contract basis, whereas W. P. No. 5983 of 1997 had filed for the contract: labourers employed in Garden. W. P. No. 5981 of 1997 was filed for the contract labourers working in civil maintenance department as it appears from the letter dated May 12, 1998 issued by the General Employees Association. By the said letter, it was contended that the respondent No. 1 (THAL Unit) did not pay the wages of contract labour as per the order passed by this Court on March 23, 1998 for the period from February. 1998 to April, 1998 in respect of civil maintenance contractors covering 58 contract workmen and from December, 1997 to April, 1998 in respect of another group of 90 contract labour workers. The Union addressed yet another letter on June 3, 1990 and alleged that the order passed by this Court on March 23, 1998, was not complied with in respect of 90 contract workers engaged through thal Mazdoor Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (TMSS for short) inasmuch as the Management of respondent No. 1 had suddenly stopped giving them jobs from June 1, 1998 and they were not allowed to enter the factory premises. It also raised the grievance regarding payment of salary from December, 1997. This Contempt petition was finally moved on or about June 29, 1998 alleging that (a) after the order dated march 23, 1998 was passed by this Court, the respondents removed 67 employees from service and (b) 90 contract labourers were not paid their monthly emoluments. It further alleged that 58 of the contract workmen were removed after the order dated March 23, 1998.

( 4 ) IN the order dated July 28, 1998 passed in this Petition, it was noted that the contract workers whose names were mentioned in exhibit-D and numbering 67 we

Click Here to Read the rest of this document