Dinesh Kumar & Others v. C.P.W.D. & Others

12. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1/Management further submits that the proceedings initiated by the Petitioners/Workmen were barred by limitation. The Petitioners/ Workmen were claiming payment of minimum wages from the year 1991, however, they have raised this claim for the first time in the year 2001.

13. With these submissions, learned counsel for Respondent No.1/ Management prays for the dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

LEGAL ANALYSIS.

14. This Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record and Judgments relied upon by the parties.

15. The issue raised for the judicial consideration of this Court is whether the claim of the Petitioners/Workmen claim under Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act can be maintained against the principal employer without impleading the contractors as party.

16. Before adverting to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to examine Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act. Section 33 (C) of the ID Act, reads as follows: “33C. Recovery of money due from an employer.--(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of 3 [Chapter VA or Chapter VB], the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue: Provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer: Provided further that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said peri (2) Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government; 4 [within a period not exceeding three month Provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think (3) For the purposes of computing the money value of a benefit, the Labour Court may, if it so thinks fit, appoint a commissioner who shall, after taking such evidence as may be necessary, submit a report to the Labour Court and the Labour Court shall determine the amount after considering the report of the commissioner and other circumstances of the case. (4) The decision of the Labour Court shall be forwarded by it to the appropriate Government and any amount found due by the Labour Court may be recovered in the manner provided for in sub-section (1). (5) Where workmen employed under the same employer are entitled to receive from him any money or any benefit capable of being computed in terms of money, then, subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, a single application for the recovery of the amount due may be made on behalf of or in respect of any number of such workmen. Explanation.--In this section Labour Court includes any court constituted under any law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State.

17. Hence, from the plain reading of Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act, it is evident that the said section will get attracted when:

(i) the workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money/any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money;

(ii) a question arises regarding the amount of money due/ the amount at which such benefit should be computed In such circumstances, the question as to what amount is due to the workman can be decided by Labour Courts under Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the ambit of Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act in the matter Central Bank Of India Vs P.S Rajagopalan reported as 1964 (3) SCR 140. The relevant portion, reads as follows:

19. Hence, from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal can adjudicate upon the entitlement of the workman to receive benefit in terms of money. Once the said entitlement is determined, the same can be executed by issuance of the necessary recovery certificates.

20. Based on the settled position of law, now this Court would proceed to examine the facts of the present case. It is an admitted position that the Petitioners/Workmen were employed through contractors. Their wages were paid by the contractors. Respondent No.1/ Management was the principal employer. It is the case of the Petitioners/Workmen that they were not paid the wages as per the Minimum wages Act for the period 1991-2001. All the records qua the payment made to the workman was in the power and possession of the employer of the Petitioners/ Workmen, i.e. the contractors. Respondent No.1/ Management being the principal employer is not obliged under law to maintain such records. Further the Petitioners/Workmen never raised any objection qua non payment of minimum wages at the relevant time. The Petitioners/Workmen raised this dispute for the first time after only in the year 2001. Further, no records were placed on record to prove the actual amount received by each of the workmen. Hence, in order to adjudicate on the entitlement of the Petitioners/Workmen and to compute the said entitlement, the employers of the Petitioners/Workmen i.e., the contractors were a necessary party to the dispute. Once the said entitlement is determined, it will be the primary liability of their employers, i.e., the contractors, to make the said payment. If the employers of the Petitioners/Workmen failed to make the said payment, the said amount can be recovered from Respondent No.1/ Management under Section 21 (4) of the CLRA Act. In case Respondent No.1/ Management provides for the payment under Section 21 (4) of the CLRA Act, they can recover the said amount from the contractors. Therefore, for the proper determination of the entitlement of the Petitioners/Workmen, the said contractors were a necessary and proper party.

21. Learned Labour Court examined this aspect in detail in the impugned Award, and held as follows: “ ….The applicants have demanded Rs. 9,31,35/- but they have not filed any document to establish the fact that they have not been paid minimum wages or they have been paid less wages. Their claim cannot be ascertained as the contractors against whom they worked are no longer under the respondents. The applicants have also failed to prove that the contractors have made less payment or they have not been paid minimum wages. They might have been paid full wages by the contractors and in that case the respondents cannot be compelled to make payment of less wages again as they cannot recover the same from the contractors who might have paid then their full wages. The application is not time barred but it is difficult to ascertain as to what amount was due in the absence of the documents of payment. It is true that the applicants are entitled to get Minimum Wages but they should have made the different contractors a party to the application. The real and the final liability is of the contractors but the contractors have not been heard in this case. Any amount paid is finally to be realized from the contractors and no order for payment can be made without hearing the contractors. The rule of natural justice enjoins that none should be condemned unheard. The different contractors have not been impleaded and they have not been given opportunity to disprove the demand of the applicants. No documents regarding payment made have filed by the claimants. Their claim fails on this count alone”.

22. The learned Labour Court passed the impugned Award based on the evidence adduced by the parties. It is a well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of this Court is limited while examining the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in India in the matter of Overseas Bank Vs I.O.B Staff Canteen Workers Unions &Anr reported as 2000(4) SCC 245, held as follows: “The learned Single Judge seems to have undertaken an exercise, impermissible for him in exercising writ jurisdiction, by liberally re- appreciating the evidence and drawing conclusions of his own on pure questions of fact, unmindful, though aware fully, that he is not exercising any appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by a Tribunal, presided over by a Judicial Officer. The findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority duly constituted for the purpose and which ordinarily should be considered to have become final, cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the writ Court to warrant those findings, at any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground that there is yet another view which can be reasonably and possibly be taken……”

23. In the present case, the learned Labour Court’s decision was based on the well-settled principle of law. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned Award which requires the interference of this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

24. In view of the detailed discussions herein above, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

GAURANG KANTH, J. MARCH 17, 2023