The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal can adjudicate upon the entitlement of the workman to receive benefit in terms of money, and the employers of the workmen are a necessary party to the dispute for the proper determination of the entitlement of the workmen.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The Petitioners/Workmen in the present writ Petition are assailing the Award dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II, Rajendra Bhawan, Ground Floor, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, in LCA No. 13/2001 (“impugned award”).

2. Learned Labour Court, vide the impugned Award, was pleased to dismiss the Application filed by the Petitioners/Workmen under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) holding that the real and final liability to pay the wages of the Petitioners/Workmen was of their employer, i.e. the contractors. However, the Petitioners/Workmen failed to implead the contractors as a party to the proceedings before the learned Labour Court and therefore, the learned Labour Court dismissed the said application filed by the Petitioners/Workmen under Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION:

3. The Petitioners/Workmen were engaged as Chowkidars w.e.f. 1993 through Respondent Nos.3 to 10 (Contractors) to provide the security services at various premises of Respondent No. 1/Management. It is the case of the Petitioners/Workmen that they were not paid as per the Minimum wages Act for the period 1st of August 1991 to 2001.

4. In view of the same, the Petitioners/Workmen, in the year 2001, filed an Application under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act before the learned Labour Court claiming a sum Rs. 9,31,359/- towards their entitlement under the Minimum Wages Act. It is pertinent to mention here that Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 were not party before the learned Labour Court.

5. Respondent No. 1/Management filed their written statement before the learned Labour Court raising the preliminary objection that the Claims filed by the Petitioners/Workmen were barred by limitation. Respondent No. 1/Management further averred that the Petitioners/Workmen have already filed W.P. (C) No. 2131/2000 before this Court for the release of the balance payment towards their wages and hence the Application filed by the Petitioners/Workmen were barred by constructive res-judicata. On merits, it was contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between the Respondent No. 1/Management and the Petitioners/Workmen. It was the case of Respondent No. 1/Management that the Petitioners/Workmen were engaged through different contractors and hence without impleading the said contractors as party to the present proceedings, it is not possible to verify the wages paid to the Petitioners/Workmen.

6. Learned Labour Court based on the evidence adduced by the parties, rejected the Application filed by the Petitioners/Workmen under Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act. Learned Labour Court observed that during the 10 year period, the Petitioners/Workmen were working under various contractors. The wages of the Petitioners/Workmen were paid by these Contractors. However, the said Contractors were not impleaded as a party to the proceedings before the learned Labour Court. In view of the same learned Labour Court rejected the Petitioners/Workmen’s application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act by holding that without impleading the Petitioners/Workmen’s employers, i.e. the contractors, it is not possible to ascertain if there is any outstanding amount.

7. Being aggrieved by the impugned Award, the Petitioners/Workmen preferred the present Writ Petition. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners/Workmen impleaded the contractors as Respondent Nos. 3-10. Despite service, there was no appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3-10 (Contractors) in the present proceedings.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS/WORKMEN.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Workmen submits that Respondent No. 1/ Management was the principal employer of the Petitioners/Workmen. Respondent No. 1/ Management was engaging the Petitioners/Workmen through contractors in violation of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Aboliti