The inspection report under the Minimum Wages Act is binding, and the contractor is liable for ensuring workers receive minimum wages regardless of contracts with third parties.

ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in W.P(L) No.5141 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to refer herein which reads as under:

(i) The petitioner-Company is engaged in manufacturing of explosives for the mining activities as well as engaged in electronic and allied services. The Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. (in short, UCIL) invited tenders for "removal of Overburden/Waste and excavation of Uranium Ore from Banduhurang Open Cast Mine and transportation of ore to the ground hopper at Turumdih or any other specified area".

(ii) The petitioner-Company participated in the said tender, and consequently was declared successful in the tender process. The Deputy Manager (Mines), UCIL vide Work Order No.972 dated 26.02.2010 accepted the offer of the petitioner-Company and issued Work Order in favour of the petitioner.

(iii) The petitioner-Company has been engaged in execution of the aforesaid work and employed contractual workers who have been paid by the petitioner-Company properly.

(iv) The Labour Enforcement Officer, Central inspected the establishment of the petitioner-Company working at Chaibasa who after said inspection directed the petitioner-Company to report compliance with regard to certain irregularities in payment of minimum wages to the contractual workers alleging therein that the petitioner-Company has been paying less than the minimum wages to the contractual workers as per the Government Notification.

(v) The Government of India vide its letter dated 30.01.2013 informed the petitioner-Company as well as the President of Jharkhand Krantikari Mazdoor Union that the Ministry does not consider the dispute fit for adjudication as the workers are engaged at Opencast Mines and the Union is demanding for below ground wages which is not a part of industrial dispute.

(vi) That based on the inspection report, the Labour Enforcement Officer, Chaibasa filed an application being M.W. Claim Application No. (130) 2013/LEO/CHI under section 20(2) of the MINIMUM WAGES ACT , 1948 before the appropriate authority, i.e, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad.

(vii) The petitioner-Company appeared in the proceeding and filed its written statement denying the allegation made against it and stated therein that it is paying minimum wages to the workers and they are also providing other benefits at the rate of Opencast Mines as per the Act of 1948.

(viii) In the said proceeding of MINIMUM WAGES ACT , the evidence has been adduced by the petitioner-Company denying the allegation that the workers are working in more than six meters depth and it was found to be below ground.

(ix) On consideration of the rival submission made on behalf of the parties and going through the material available on record, the adjudicatory authority, i.e., the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad has passed an order directing the petitioner- Company to deposit an amount of Rs.86,70,688/- which includes difference amount of wages of Rs.21,67,672/- and compensation of Rs.65,03,016/- to be paid for a common transaction in favour of the labourers who have been engaged in execution of the work by the petitioner-Company.

(x) Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Company approached before the learned Single Judge by filing writ petition being W.P(L) No.5141