##PAGE1##

2026:JHHC:2534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (L) No. 6845 of 2023

---------

Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, Aged about 48 years, S/o: Baijnath

Agarwal, Resident of: Vill- Matigada, Shwaspur, East Singhbhum,

Jharkhand-8321006, P.O.: Matigada, P.S.: Sidhgora, District: East

Singhbhum, State Jharkhand-825301. ....Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Geology and Mines

at Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, PO& PS: Shastri Bhawan, New

Delhi-110001.

2. The Labour Enforcement officer (Central), Chaibasa 3rd Floor,

Balaji Apartment, Mahulsai Rd, Nindhi, Chaibasa P.O-

Chaibasa, P.S Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

3. Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central) Dhanbad, Shram

Bhawan, Murli magar, New Colony, Dhanbad, Jharkhand at P.O

Jagjivan nagar, P.S- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad, P.I.n-

826003.

4. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Chaibasa at Flat No.3

A, Balaji Apartment, 3rd Floor, Above Syndicate Bank, At-

Nimdih, Chaibasa, P.O-Chaibasa, P.S-Nimdih, Dist: Singhbhum

(West), State: Jharkhand-833201.

5. The Deputy General Manager, Uranium Corporation of India

Limited, Jaduguda, at PO & PS: Jaduguda Mines, Dist.:

Singhbhum (East), State: Jharkhand-832102. ....Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate

For the Resp.-UOI : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Sr.S.C.

For the Resp.-State : Mr. J.F. Toppo, G.A.-V

Mr. N.A. Toppo, A.C. to G.A.-V

---------

07/Dated:-29.01.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order

dated 16/17.08.2023, whereby the authority had directed the

petitioner to deposit Rs.1,84,636/- which includes the difference

amount of wages of Rs.46,159/- and compensation of

Rs.1,38,477/-.

1

2026:JHHC:2534

3. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he is a

contractor and the principal employer has not given the required

amount / agreed amount to the contractor which led to less

payment of wages to the workers. He further tries to impress this

Court by drawing attention towards Contract Labour (Abolition

and Regulation) Act, 1970 and submits that it is the principal

employer who is responsible for wages.

4. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that this Court may kindly give liberty to take appropriate

action against the principal employer as the principal employer

has not given required amount which led to less payment of wages

to the workers.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 opposes such

submission and draws attention of this Court towards paras 4, 5,

6 of the impugned order (Annexure-4) wherein this issue has been

discussed.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

going through the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner

has failed to make out any case and further the stand of the

petitioner that he being a contractor and the principal employer

has not given him required money is misplaced and misconceived

and cannot be accepted in view of the categorical finding given by

the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad in its order

which is impugned herein; as such, I don’t find any error in the

impugned order. For brevity, para 7 and 8 of the order is extracted

hereinbelow:

2

2026:JHHC:2534

“7. On going through the statement of workers recorded during inspection

on 28.08.2018 as mentioned in the inspection report No. 26(43)/2018-LEO/CHI

dated 31.08.2018 issued to Opponent, statement of workers and hearing the

Applicant this Authority finds that the Opponent has not paid statutory

minimum wages to his workers as due under Notification No. SO.188(E) dated

19.01.2017 of Government of india. The wages paid to the workers are less

than the rate of wages notified under the Act. Even after issuing aforesaid

Inspection Report-cum-show cause Notice to the Opponent to rectify the

irregularities, the Opponent failed to pay difference of wages to the