The principal employer is responsible for ensuring payment of minimum wages to workmen engaged in scheduled employments, and may be liable to pay the difference in wages if the contractor fails to do so, as per Section 21(4) of the Act of 1970.

Per SUNIL AMBW ANI, J.

Heard Shri G.D. Misra for the petitioner.

Shri M.P.S. Chauhan appears for respondent-workmen Nos. 4 to 59.

The petitioner is a co-operative society engaged in the business of purchasing, pausturising, packing and selling milk and milk products in the trade name of Parag in District Hathras. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to set aside an order dated October 31, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Minimum of Wages Act, 1948/Depuly Labour Commissioner, Aligarh, by which he has awarded Rs.1,86,696/- as the difference between minimum wages and the wages paid to the 56 workmen engaged by the petitioner as labour, paiker, mali, lab assistant, electrician, refrigiration plant operator, sweeper, clerk and boiler attendant etc. and Rs. 56,000/- as penalty at the rate of Rs.1000/- per workman.

2. The 56 workmen made a complaint to the Prescribed Authority that they were engaged through Shri Jai Mangal and Shri Roshan Singh, contractors to work in the dairy run by the petitioner. They claimed the difference of minimum wages and wages paid to them for the period from August 2005 to January 2006 and ten times compensation for defaults made under the Act of 1948.

3. The petitioner took a defence that the workmen were engaged through licenced contractors under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the Act of 1970) and that the contractors were required to pay the minimum wages. The workmen were paid the minimum wages by the contractors. One Shri Dalveer Singh, contractor was not made as party to the proceedings. Shri Roshan Singh, contractor had engaged some of the workmen, who were paid Rs.90/- per day. Shri Banwari Lal was paid Rs. 95/- per day. The workmen from serial Nos. 47 to 49 engaged by Shri Shanker Lal were also paid Rs. 90/- per day. The workmen at serial Nos. 10, 12, 13, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 44 and 55 were not engaged by the opposite party No.3 nor had worked at the dairy during the relevant period.

4. The Prescribed Authority found that the contracts was not proved by the petitioner. Shri Jai Mangal and Sitri Roshan Singh, contractors were engaged for engaging the contract labour on June 2, 2004 and May 26, 2004, photocopies of which were produced. The petitioner however did not ensure that the contractors paid minimum wages to the workmen. The Prescribed Authority awarded the difference of o wages of Rs. 1,86,696/- and a sum of Rs. 1000/. as penalty to each workman quantified at Rs. 56,000/- and gave directions to the petitioner to pay Rs, 2,42,696/- by bank draft to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aligarh.

5. S. Shri G.D. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dairy farming is not a scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary, Padippu K.S. Sangam Ltd. v. C. Varghese, 2007-II-LLJ-544 (SC) in support of his submission. Shri G.D. Misra would further submit that the business run by the co-operative society is not a dairy business as the milk is collected, pausterised, packed and sold. The petitioner-society do not rare cows or buffalows. The milk is purchased from the dairy farmers, who sell the milk to the petitioner. It is submitted that all the documents were produced on October 30, 2007 giving the o names of the contractors and their licenses and that the contractors had paid the minimum wages to the workmen.

6. Shri M.P.S. Chauhan learned counsel for the respondent-workmen-would submit that the minimum wages were not paid and that under Section 21 (4) of the Act of 1970, if the contractor does not pay the minimum wages, the principal employer is liable to pay the o difference between the minimum wages and the wages paid to the workmen. .

7. The dairy farming in Part-II of the Schedule does not include the business of a co-operative society engaged in collecting, processing, packing and selling milk. The State of U.P. however has notified the dairy and milk da