IMPORTANT POINT
The Regional Labour Commissioner exceeded his powers in directing the principal employer to pay the differential wages under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

1. Does the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) have the Jurisdiction to direct the principal employer to pay the differential wages payable to an employee of a contractor, under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 while dealing with a conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? The answer lies intrinsically interwind under various provisions of multiple enactments.

2. M/s. HLL Life Care Limited, which is a public sector undertaking under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, is before this Court against Ext.P4 order issued by the 3rd respondent, Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Thiruvananthapuram by which it is made liable for the alleged non-payment of minimum wages by the 1st respondent, M/s. Sapthazeal Private Limited, under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.

3. As per Ext.P1 agreement of contract entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent was entrusted with the job of providing house keeping facility at the petitioner’s factory at Peroorkkada, Thiruvananthapuram. The 2nd respondent, which is a Trade Union and claims to be representing the workers of the 1st respondent, submitted a complaint before the 3rd respondent stating that they have not received minimum wages notified by the Government of India. The said complaint is produced as Ext.P2. Pursuant to Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 notice dated 28.7.2017 calling for the petitioner and the 1st respondent for conciliation meeting under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By Ext.P4 order dated 8.12.2017, the 3rd respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay minimum wages to the workers of the 2nd respondent Trade Union employed by the 1st respondent on its failure to pay the same under the provisions of law. It is challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent, this writ petition is filed.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition by I.A. No. 1 of 2019, other Unions, who represent similarly situated employees engaged in the work by the contractor attached to the petitioner, were also impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 6.

5. I have heard Sri. P. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Thirumala P.K. Mani, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent; Sri. Gopakumar R. Thaliyath, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent; and Sri. P.N. Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 4 to 6.

6. While answering the question posed before this Court, necessarily the liability of the petitioner to pay the wages to the members/workers of respondents 2, 4, 5 & 6 Unions may also have to be decided.

7. Sri. P. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, refers to the various clauses under Ext.P1 agreement to assert before this Court that the intention behind Ext.P1 was to secure certain house keeping services at Peroorkkada factory and the packaging unit at Balaramapuram of the HLL Life Care Limited (hereinafter referred to as “HLL” for short). Still further, it is contended that the contractor shall have no right, title or interest in the site made available by the HLL for execution of the work or in the building structures etc. The agreement also envisages that the contractor be paid the respective amounts for the work done by it and approved by the HLL. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when Ext.P2 complaint was raised by the 2nd respondent Union, the specific grievance was that the 1st respondent was not paying the minimum wages. Ext.P3 is a notice issued under the provisions of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 calling for the parties for a conciliation process and further that if the conciliation did not materialise, the only option available before the 3rd respondent was to refer the matter before the appropriate labour court