Uttam Kumar Singh and Others vs Project Manager, Hafed and Another

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1107 of 2002 filed by the workmen and Civil Revision No. 2678 of 2002 filed by the HAFED (hereinafter referred to as ''the principal employer''), as both of them are aggrieved against the order dated 15.1.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal filed by the principal employer u/s 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), was partly allowed.

In this case, 11 workmen, who were employed by the principal employer through contractor Haldar Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) filed an application u/s 15(2) of the Act for directing the principal employer to pay the difference of wages which was not paid to them by the contractor. The total amount of the wages of 11 workmen for the period 1.10.1996 to 30.9.1997, as claimed, was Rs. 79,693/-. The principal employer, who was respondent No. 1 before the Prescribed Authority, contested the said application on the ground that the workmen were employed through the contractor, therefore, the principal employer was not liable to pay the difference of wages which was not paid by the contractor. The Prescribed Authority, after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, has recorded a finding of fact that the contractor did not pay the full amount of wages to the workmen for which they were entitled to and in this regard there was a deficiency of Rs. 69,765/-. Further the Prescribed Authority while relying upon the provisions of Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Contract Labour Act'') has held that if the contractor failed to make payment to the workmen, it was the obligation of the principal employer to make payment of the said wages and deduct the same from the contractor. On coming to the said conclusion, the principal employer was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 69,765/-, which was the difference of the less wages, along with four times compensation of Rs. 2,79,060/-, i.e. total amount of Rs. 3,48,825/-, to the workmen; in view of Section 15(3) of the Act.

Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the principal employer filed an appeal u/s 17 of the Act before the Additional District Judge.

The learned Additional District Judge after coming to the conclusion that in view of Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour Act, the principal employer is liable to make, the deficiency of short payment, if the contractor fails to make the payment of full wages, which he could have deducted from the amount payable to the contractor under the contract or as a debt payable by the contractor, but the principal employer is not liable to pay the penalty/compensation u/s 15(3) of the Act because the aforesaid liability of the principal employer has been fastened on the principal employer u/s 21(4) of the Contract Labour Act in which there is no provision for awarding compensation/penalty to the workman. The learned Additional District Judge has come to the aforesaid conclusion on the basis of the two decisions of the Supreme Court in Senior Regional Manager, Food Corpn. of India, Calcutta v. Tulsi Dass Bauri and Others,1 1997 (3) R.S.J. 511 and Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Labour and Others,2 1996 (4) R.S.J. 129.

After coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Additional District Judge partly allowed the appeal to the extent of payment of wages to the workmen amounting to Rs. 69,765/-, and the direction issued to the principal employer to make payment of the compensation amounting to Rs. 2,79,060/- to the workmen, was set aside.

Against the said order, the workmen as well as the principal employer have filed the revisions.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the workmen very fairly submitted that u/s 21(4) of the Contract Labour Act there is no provision for award of penalty/compensation to the workmen on the delayed payment. Actually the said provision was enacted only to ensure that the workmen engaged by the contractor should be paid the full wages by the contractor and in case there is any deficiency, a rider has been provided that the workman can claim the said deficiency from the principal employer, who after making payment to the workman, can recover the same from the contractor. However, the learned counsel argued that the workmen be awarded interest on the amount of Rs. 69,765/- as the said amount has not been received by them till date. In this regard, learned counsel for the principal employer has stated that the principal employer has deposited the amount of Rs. 69,765/- and the compensation with the District Courts on 27.10.1999 and the said amount is lying there, therefore, no interest can be awarded to the workmen.

As far as the revision petition filed by the principal employer is concerned, learned counsel for the principal employer argued that in the eventuality of non-payment of full wages to the workmen by the contractor, the principal employer was liable to make the deficiency of short payment, which thereafter could have deducted from the amount payable to the contractor under the contract or as a debt payable by the contractor. It is further the case of the principal employer that he is not liable to pay the compensation u/s 21(4) of the Contract Labour Act as there is no provision for award of penalty/compensation to the workmen on the delayed payment. Therefore, once the payment of full wages has been made by the principal employer to the workmen, no further liability can be fastened on him to pay interest on the deficient amount of Rs. 69,765/-.

In view of the above, both the revision petitions are dismissed. However, the workmen are permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 69,765/-. If the said amount was put in the Fixed Deposit Receipt, the workmen shall also be paid the proportionate interest accrued on the said amount. The principal employer shall be entitled to get refund/withdrawal of the amount of compensation deposited by it before the District Courts.