1 wp8428.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

903 WRIT PETITION NO.8428 OF 2016

AHMEDNAGAR ZILHA NAGAR PALIKA KAMGAR KARMACHARI UNION

TRADE UNION CENTER THROUGHIT GENERAL SECRETAY

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr P.V. Barde, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr S.R. Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3;

Mr A.V. Hon, Advocate for respondent no.4;

Mr A.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.5

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

AND

S.G. MEHARE, JJ

DATE : 28^th July, 2021

P.C.

1.

On 8^th July, 2021, we had passed the following order :-

“1.

It is an admitted position that the employees were deployed

on contractual basis with respondent No.4/ Shirdi Municipal

Council by respondent No.5 employer/ contractor. There was a

privity of contract between respondent Nos.4 and 5 to engage the

contract labourers. The Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970 would govern this situation.

2.

It is equally settled that if the provisions of the Minimum

Wages Act, 1948 are applicable and the contract labourers are

entitled for minimum wages, it shall be bounden duty of the

contractor to pay the said wages. If the contractor fails to pay

such wages, the burden shifts to the principal employer, who is

2 wp8428.16.odt

duty bound to pay the minimum wages. Needless to state, any

contract between the principal employer and the contractor de-

hors the law would amount to contracting out.

3.

The learned advocate for respondent No.4/ Municipal

Council fairly submits that the Municipal Council was not aware of

the provisions of law. They signed the contract with respondent

No.5/ contractor on such terms and conditions vide which, wages

were consolidated for the contract labourers. Those consolidated

wages may have fallen below the prescription of the Minimum

Wages Act, 1948.

4.

The learned advocate for respondent No.5/ contractor

submits, on the basis of the affidavit filed, that he would ultimately

have to take money from the principal employer for the services

rendered and therefore, respondent No.4/ Municipal Council be

directed to pay the deficit wages as per the Minimum Wages Act,

1948, through the contractor.

5.

In view of the above situation and the settled law, it is

respondent No.5 which has to pay such wages to the contract

labourers and such amounts are to be paid to the contractor by

the principal employer along with the service charges. However,

in this dispute between respondent Nos.4 and 5, the contractual

labourers represented by the petitioner are left high and dry.

6. We are, therefore, listing this matter on 28.07.2021 in the

“passing orders” category so as to give breathing time to

respondent Nos.4 and 5 to settle the issue amongst themselves

and come with an appropriate proposal before this Court to

ensure that the deficit payment of the labourers is made in

accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. Both these

respondents need to keep in mind that violation of the provisions

3 wp8428.16.odt

of the Minimum Wages Act is likely to attract criminal prosecution

against the erring representatives of these respondents.”

2.

The Shirdi Municipal Council has entered an additional affidavit through

Shri Kakasaheb Sidheshwar Doiphode, Chief Officer, Shirdi Nagar Panchayat,

dated 25^th July, 2021. Vide the said affidavit, the Municipal Council has raised

the following issues:-

a)

The petitioner Union is not a party to the contract signed by the

Nagar Panchayat with respondent no.5 labour contractor;

b)

The labourers appointed by respondent no.5 are not membe