The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cannot be exclusively fastened upon a party by virtue of an agreement. The liability would be joint and several if the parties otherwise fall within the definition of 'employer' as defined under the Act.

JUDGMENT

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Ranajay De, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate and Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate.

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4, Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate, submits that he has no instruction in the matter and accordingly he has not advanced any argument in the instant case.

3. Nobody appears on behalf of other respondents.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

"An appropriate writ, order or direction from this Hon''ble Court for quashing of order dated 07.04.2012 passed by learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi in M.W. Appeal No. 2 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the order dated 18.08.2009 passed in MW Case No. 24 of 2008 has been dismissed;

(II) A further writ, order or direction for quashing of order dated 18.08.2009 passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi in M.W. Case No. 24 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 29,40,645/- to 69 labourers on account of difference of payment under the Minimum Wages Act and also to pay compensation; AND/OR

(III) Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and appropriate for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case."

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows:-

a. On 15.07.1992, the petitioner-company had entered into an agreement with the respondent no. 4 in connection with engagement of C & F agent as contained Annexure-1 to this writ petition According to the counsel it has been clearly indicated in the agreement itself that the agreement is on principal to principal basis.

b. A proceeding under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was initiated and was numbered as M. W. Case No. 24 of 2008 wherein the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 4 were parties and vide order dated 18.08.2009, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi directed both the parties to make payment of an amount of Rs. 29,40,645/- to 69 workmen within a period of 30 days.

c. The said order dated 18.08.2009, which was an exparte order , was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 5495 of 2011which was disposed of vide order dated 09.11.2011 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum within the stipulated timeframe. In the meantime, a certificate proceeding was also initiated for the recovery of the amount arising out of aforesaid order passed in M. W. 24 of 2008.

d. Pursuant to order passed in W.P. (L) No. 5495 of 2011, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and specifically raised an issue that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and said 69 workmen and accordingly, the petitioner is not liable to pay minimum wages to such persons.

e. In the meantime, the respondent no. 4 who had filed an independent appeal against order dated 18.08.2009 , the said appeal was dismissed, and against the appellate order another writ petition was filed before this Court, which was numbered as W.P. (L) No. 3973 of 2011.

f. However, in the appeal filed by the petitioner ,the Appellate Authority vide impugned order rejected the contention of the petitioner on the point of employer and employee relationship and the matter was adjourned to 16.04.2012 in connection with distribution of the amount to the concerned workmen.

g. During the course of argument, counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a judgment passed by the Industrial Tribunal, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit, and has submitted that in Reference Case No. 1 of 2011, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi vide judgment dated 28.04.2018 has held that there is no relationship of empl