Arun Rai and Ors. v. Central Public Works Department through its Director General of Workers and Ors.

11. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Workmen submits that the Respondent Nos.1-3/ Management was the principal employer of the Petitioners/Workmen. Respondent Nos.1-3/ Management was engaging the Petitioners/Workmen through contractors in violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (“CLRA Act”). Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Workmen further submits that the Petitioners/Workmen was working as Chowkidars at the office of Respondent Nos.1-3/ Management since 1994. However, they have not been paid any back wages and further wages.

12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Workmen further submits that the Petitioners/Workmen was working under the direct control of the officers of Respondent No.1/ Management. Hence Respondent No.1/ Management was duty bound to make the payment to the Petitioners/Workmen as per Section 21 (4) of the CLRA Act. However, the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate this fact and rejected the Application filed by the Petitioners/Workmen under Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act.

13. In view of these submissions, the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Workmen prayed for the setting aside of the impugned Award.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

14. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1-3/Management argues in support of the impugned Award. Learned counsel submits that there was no employer-employee relationship between the Petitioners/Workmen and Respondent Nos.1-3/ Management. The Petitioners/Workmen were working under various contractors since 1994. The payment of wages was the responsibility of Respondent No.4/Contractor. The Petitioners/ Workmen never complained about the non-payment of wages. Since there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties, Respondent Nos.1-3/Management cannot be held responsible for non-payment of backwages and further wages.

15. With these submissions, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1- 3/Management prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

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

17. The issue raised for the judicial consideration of this Court is whether the Petitioners’ claim under Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act is maintainable against Respondent Nos.1-3/Management.

18. 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.

19. Hence from a plain reading of Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act it is evident that the provision 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 as to the amount of money due/ as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed In such circumstances, the question regarding the amount due to the workman can be decided by learned Labour Courts under Section 33 (C) (2) of the ID Act.

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

21. It is therefore evident from the aforesaid, that under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal can adjudicate upon the entitlement of the workman to receive the benefit in terms of money. Once the said entitlement is determined, the same can be executed by issuance of the necessary recovery certificates.

22. 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 were employed through Respondent No.4/Contractor. Their wages were paid by Respondent No.4/ Contractor. Respondent Nos.1-3/ Management was the principal employer. It is the case of the Petitioners/Workmen that they were not paid backwages and further wages. The time period of nonpayment was not specified. They never complained about the non-payment of wages before the filing of the Petition under Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act. Respondent Nos.1-3/ Management being the principal employer made the necessary payment to Respondent No.4/Contractor as per the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties.

23. Under CLRA Act, the liability of the Respondent Nos.1- 3/Management gets triggered after the determination of the entitlement of the Petitioners/Workmen. In the present case, Petitioners/Workmen failed to prove that they are entitled for back wages and future wages. Even after the said determination, it will be liability of the employer of the Petitioners/Workmen, i.e., Respondent No.4/Contractor, to make the said payment. If the employer of the Petitioners/Workmen, i.e, Respondent No.4/Contractor fails to make the said payment, the said amount can be recovered from Respondent Nos.1-3/ Management under Section 21 (4) of the CLRA Act. Respondent Nos.1-3/ Management, in that case, can recover the said amount from the employer of the Petitioners/Workmen, i.e, Respondent No.4/Contractor.

24. The learned Labour Court examined this aspect in detail in the impugned Award and held as follows:

25. 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 of 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……”

26. 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 Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

27. 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