The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the employer-employee relationship under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the liability for payment of wages and overtime.

ORDER ANAND PATHAK, J. – Regard being had to the similitude of controversy, all the writ appeals are heard and decided by this common order.

2. For convenience’s sake, facts as narrated in Writ Appeal No. 457/2020 are taken into consideration.

3. Instant writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 29-11-2019 passed by the learned Writ Court in M. P. No. 2677/2018 whereby petition preferred by the appellant as petitioner against the order dated 31-1-2018 passed by the Legal Authority under the Minimum Wages Act (Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior) has been dismissed.

4. Appellant/petitioner herein i.e. National Health Mission, is a body created for providing better health services and assistance to the State Authorities to outreach Medical Health Services in each and every part of the State. Under the aegis of appellant, various different programmes are being run through Public Private Partnership, particulars of which are given in the petition. These various programmes/schemes are being run with an agreement with respondent No. 2-Zigitsa Health Care Ltd. and it is the said entity which carries out the activities.

5. Respondent No. 1 is an employee of respondent No. 2 and at the relevant point of time was working as Emergency Medical Technician since 21-10-2016.

6. It appears from pleadings that respondent No. 1/employee worked for 12 hours for a certain period of time and payment was made only for 8 hours, therefore, he preferred an application under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short “the Act of 1948”) before the Court below (Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior, as Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act) with the allegation that respondent No. 2 has not paid him overtime, therefore, payment be made under the Act of 1948. Employee referred the calculation of amount to the tune of Rs. 1,02,100/- with ten times penalty. Present appellant was made party as respondent No. 2 in the said case wherein appellant preferred reply, whereas present respondent No. 2- Zigitza Health Care Ltd did not prefer to file any reply.

7. It was the case of the appellant before the Court below that since no agreement exists between the appellant and respondent No. 1, therefore, no employer-employee relationship exists and he is the employee of respondent No. 2-Zigitza Health Care Ltd., therefore, present appellant is not responsible for such payment. Responsibility lies over respondent No. 2. Appellant referred the scheme and Request for Proposal (RFP) executed between the parties and categorically submitted in its reply that responsibility lies over present respondent No. 2.

8. Evidence was led in which employee/respondent No. 1 appeared in the witness-box and was cross-examined by the present appellant as well as respondent No. 2. After considering the rival submissions and evidence on record, Court below passed the impugned order dated 31-1-2018 whereby employee was found to be entitled for payment of overtime to the tune of Rs. 1,02,100/- with Rs. 10,000/- as penalty. It was observed by the Labour Court that relationship of principal employee appears to exist between respondent No. 1 and appellant.

9. Against the said order, appellant preferred writ petition with the submissions that no such employer-employee relationship exists between the two and Court below erred in fastening the liability over the appellant. Learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant, therefore, being aggrieved by the same, appellant/petitioner has preferred this appeal.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant stressed over the fact that employee was appointed by respondent No. 2 and not by the appellant for carrying out operations under National Health Mission like 108 Ambulance, Janni Suraksha Yojna etc. and it is the sweet will of the contractor to depute any employee under its employment for this purpose and being service provider, it was his duty to take care of his employees and indemnify them accordingly, therefore,