The court upheld the order directing the petitioner to pay minimum wages, overtime wages, and compensation to workers as per the contractual obligation under Clause 90 of the Agreement, citing violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Gowda, C.J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, which has entered into a contract with opposite party-Railway to render services of cleaning of Railway coaches at Bhubaneswar Coaching Depot and depot premises by adopting mechanized method as per the agreement dated 10.5.2007. The period of contract is for five years from 20.3.2007 to 19.3.2012. As per the contract between the petitioner and the opposite party-Railway, the petitioner is required to clean approximately 93 coaches per day at Bhubaneswar Coaching Depot and Depot premises through advanced machinery with the help of its workers. Prior to the work undertaken by the petitioner, similar work was done by the petitioner by engaging workers at the supervision of the personnel of the opposite party No. 1. The rate of wages payable to the employees is stipulated Clause 90 of the Agreement wherein it is stated that the Contractor shall be responsible to ensure compliance with the provision of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Rules made there under in respect of any employee directly or through petty Contractors or Sub-Contractors employed by him.

The petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness of the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar who is the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay minimum wages for 122 workers for the period from 7.8.2008 to 31.10.2008 amounting to Rs. 5,60,600.52 and overtime wages for the period from 1.10.2008 to 31.10.2008 amounting Rs. 31,000/-, in total Rs. 5,91,600.52 and towards compensation three times of the claimed amount i.e. Rs. 16,81,801.56 and Rs. 1,220.00. The petitioner has been directed to deposit a total sum of Rs. 22,74,623.00 towards the claim and compensation. The correctness of the same is questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition urging various grounds.

The first ground urged is that the claim petition is not maintainable in view of the limitation of six months as stipulated u/s 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as the claim is preferred by the Labor Enforcement Officer (Central), Bhubaneswar-II on behalf of the concerned workers who are working under the petitioner. Therefore, the application for minimum wages filed beyond the period of limitation without there being an application seeking for condonation of delay as provided under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 under which the authority is empowered to condone the delay, if an application is filed beyond the period of six months showing sufficient cause for not making an application within time. No such application was filed by the applicant-opposite party No. 3, before the opposite party No. 4. Hence, order passed by opposite party No. 4 on the merits of the case determining the minimum wages, overtime wages with direction to pay compensation three times of the amount claimed are invalid in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

2. The second ground urged is that since the minimum wages has been paid to the workmen as per the rates fixed by the Labour Department, the finding recorded in the impugned order that the minimum wages were not paid to the workers engaged is erroneous and not tenable. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. The third ground urged by the petitioner is that opposite party No. 1 is the principal employer and therefore the order fastening the liability should have been passed against opposite party No. 1. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

4. With reference to the aforesaid legal contentions, learned Counsel Mr. Mishra, appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act placing strong reliance upon Clause 90 of the Agreement which casts a statutory obligation on the petitioner who is the contractor and ag