Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—The above mentioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioner which is a Central Government Company against the order dated 6.3.1991 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act i.e. the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and the judgment dated 8.10.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Gorakhpur, the Appellate Authority, under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.

2. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar holding brief of Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Komal Mehrotra holding brief of Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 4 to 22 and the learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.

3. The facts in brief, relevant for the controversy, are that the respondent Nos. 4 to 22 filed nineteen separate applications under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1936) before the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur claiming a total sum of Rs. 400/- as bonus for the year 1984-1985 and ten times of the said amount as compensation. Each of the nineteen respondents in their objections claimed the same amount of the bonus as compensation for the same period against the petitioner and the respondent No. 3, Dubar, who is a registered contractor of the petitioner. These objections were filed making almost identical allegations that the respondent Nos. 4 to 22 had been working as Mazdoor in the Fertilizer factory of the petitioner for several years under the contractor Ram Dubar. They were entitled to bonus for the year 1984-1985 of Rs. 400/-. But it was illegally deducted from their wages by the contractor. In terms of the provisions of the Act not only were the respondent Nos. 4 to 22 entitled for illegally deducted bonus but also to ten times of the said amount as compensation.

4. The petitioners filed their written statement in all nineteen cases i.e. in Case Nos. 98 to 116 of 1996 taking almost identical objections on the applications of the respondent Nos. 4 to 22. It was alleged that the respondent Nos. 4 to 22 were not employed by the petitioner but by the contractor Ram Dubar and in terms of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1970), the contractor was liable to make payments to his employees and the petitioner was only to ensure that the contractor paid the wages to his employees/workmen regularly without deductions. Since the respondent Nos. 4 to 22 were not regular employees of the petitioner Establishment, they were not entitled to payment of any bonus by them.

5. The respondent No. 3, Ram Dubar, the contractor, in his written statement admitted that he was registered as a contractor under the Act, 1970 had worked as such in the petitioner’s Establishment under the control of the contractor. But he denied that the respondent Nos. 4 to 22 were engaged by him and alleged that no relationship of employer and employee existed between the Respondent No. 3 and Respondent Nos. 4 to 22.

6. In their rejoinder to the written statement of the petitioner and the contractor, the respondent Nos. 4 to 22 alleged that they had been working in the factory of the petitioner as regular employees and that they were entitled to all benefits/remunerations as was paid to regular employees; since the petitioner had given 8.33% bonus amounting to Rs. 400/- to its regular employees under the Payment of Bonus Act, for the year 1984-1985 they were also entitled for the payment of same benefit. The respondent Nos. 4 to 22 claimed that the petitioner was the principal employer although they had been engaged by the contractor.

7. On an application being made by the petitioner all nineteen cases were clubbed together and heard by the Respondent No. 2 and he rejected the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of Application un