The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was maintainable, and the workman was entitled to the wages determined by the Central Wage Board, as interpreted by the Court.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. Petitioner-Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Management" for convenience sake) has assailed the award made by the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh in case L.C.A. No. 4 of 2010, dated 17.08.2010.

2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-Workman (hereinafter referred to as "the workman" for convenience sake) has filed a petition u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity sake). Primarily, the workman has confined his relief to the difference of wages and arrears as per Wage Board constituted by the Central Government amounting Rs. 508501/-.

3. The Management filed reply to the same. Primarily, it was contended by the Management that the application u/s 33-C(2) was not maintainable in the present form. It was also contended that u/s 22 of the Act, the application u/s 33(C)(2) was not maintainable. The workman was not directly employed by the Management as Workman. Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court vide award dated 17.08.2010 computed a sum of Rs. 508501/- in the proceedings u/s 33-C(2) payable to the workman. The Management was directed to pay the computed amount within two months from the date of receiving the order.

4. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the application u/s 33-C(2) was not maintainable. According to him, the proceedings u/s 33-C(2) are in the form of execution. He then argued that the workman was not employed by the Management. He lastly contended that u/s 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the application.

5. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has strenuously argued that the workman is entitled to the wages determined by the Central Wage Board constituted by the Central Government on 02.04.1958 and the recommendations made from time to time. He further argued that the amount has already been computed as per award and the same was liable to be paid by the Management and since the difference of wages has not been paid to the workman at par with regularly employed employees of the Company, he was entitled to move an appropriate application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

7. The dispute is in a narrow compass. The core issue to be decided is whether the application preferred by the workman u/s 33-C(2) was maintainable before the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court or not. The workman was engaged on 21st April, 2003. He has served a legal notice upon the Management on 30th January, 2010. Thereafter, as noticed above, he has filed a claim petition, to which reply was filed by the Management.

8. The Management has placed on record the recommendations made by the Wage Board vide Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-6, respectively. A bare perusal of item Nos. 4.27 and 4.28 of Annexure P-3 makes it abundantly clear that the contract labour employed in the Cement Industry should get the same wages, dearness allowance, leave, medical facilities, hours of work and overtime as departmental labour and they should also get the same rate of bonus. It is also made clear as per paragraph 4.27 that employers should carry more direct responsibility to ensure that the contractors make payment to their labour on the employers' premises and in the presence of a representative deputed by the employer to check and supervise such payments.

9. The recommendations of the Wage Board have been summarized vide Annexure P-4, whereby in paragraph No. 14.8, it is reiterated that the contract labour employed in the Cement Industry should get the same wages, dearness allowance, leave etc. as departmental labour and they should get the same rate of bonus and as per paragraph No. 14.9, it is reiterated t