The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to determine wage parity for contract workers performing similar work as regular employees under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

(1) Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.

(2) By this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 28/12/2013 passed by the Respondent No. 1 – Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Mumbai by which the Petitioners were directed to make parity with regular workers directly employed by the Petitioner No. 2 - NEERI and fix their pay in a revised pay band and scale of Rs. 5200-20200 (PB-1) on the basis of the letter dated 21/07/2010 issued by the Joint Secretary (Admin) of the parent Ministry.

(3) The facts giving rise for filing of the present Writ Petition are as under.

(4) The Petitioner No. 2, a Research Institution, owned and funded by the Government of India, invited tender and accordingly awarded a job contract to the Respondent No. 4 for the period from 01/09/2008 to 31/08/2009 for the specified work concerning Job No. 1 i.e. cleaning, sanitation, housekeeping; Job No. 2 i.e. Horticulture; and Job No. 3 i.e. various jobs/activities related to externally funded projects to be executed by the Respondent No. 4 at NEERI headquarters, Nagpur and its zonal laboratories at Mumbai, New Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Hyderabad on specified terms and conditions. On 30/09/2008, the Labour Enforcement Officer, Mumbai had visited the Zonal Laboratory at Mumbai and termed the workers working in NEERI, Mumbai as unskilled labours and directed to pay minimum wages @ Rs. 181.35 NP from 01/08/2008 and pursuant thereto, the Respondent No. 4 claimed the said minimum wages which the Petitioner No. 2 agreed as per the approval from CSIR parental Institution (Petitioner No. 1) as per Notification dated07/08/2008.

(5) On 29/12/2009, the Respondent No. 3 – Sangh submitted a Complaint to the Respondent No. 2 demanding payment of wages to the contract labourers at par with Groups C and D Employees of the Petitioners. On 08/03/2010, the Respondent No. 2 informed the Petitioners that it proposes to visit the Petitioner – Institution.

(6) According to the Petitioners, despite letter issued by the Director of the Petitioners stating that he is on tour and requesting to postpone the proposed visit, the Labour Enforcement Officer perforce visited the Petitioner – Institution on 17/03/2010 and drawn enquiry note. In pursuance to the said enquiry note, on 05/07/2010, the Respondent No. 2 sent letter to the Petitioner – Institution directing to pay wages to the Contractor’s Employees at par with permanent Employees from the date they have been engaged and directed to report compliance. On 16/07/2010, the Petitioner – Institution informed in reply that there is already a dispute raised by Contractor’s Employees before the Labour Court, and therefore, there is no justification to issue such direction. On 08/09/2010, the Respondent No. 3 also made a Complaint against the Petitioners to the Respondent No. 1 who forwarded the said Complaint to the Petitioner – Institution on 14/09/2010 followed by the letter dated 01/11/2010 wherein it was directed to the Petitioners to attend the hearing on 11/11/2010 in its office at Mumbai. On 08/11/2010, the Petitioners reiterated their contentions in the communication sent to the Respondent No. 1 about the pendency of the same matter before the Labour Court at Nagpur which was dismissed and the same is now pending before the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur and requested to await the decision.

(7) According to the Petitioners, on 12/11/2010, despite the said fact, the Respondent No. 1 visited the Petitioner – Institution, and thereafter, directed the Petitioners to appear before it on 15/12/2010. The Administrative Officer attended the hearing on the said date. On 15/12/2010, the Proceedings were concluded and signed by both the parties wherein it was agreed that the Respondent No. 3 – Union shall submit documentary evidence to the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 1. On 17/07/2011, the Respondent No. 1 issued an order directing the Petitioners to grant the wages c