East Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dharmender Kumar & Anr

Delhi High Court · 24 May 2017 · 2017:DHC:8142

Anu Malhotra

W.P.(C) 4547/2017

2017:DHC:8142

labor appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that the principal employer is liable to pay minimum wage arrears and compensation to contract labourers when the contractor defaults, and the employer can recover the amount from the contractor.

Full Text

\ 'N,-' $-24, 31, 33, 35 & 37 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 4547/2017 & CM APPL 19822-19823/2017
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner
Through Kumar Rajesh Singh, Standing Counsel for EDMC

VERSUS

DHARMENDER KUMAR &ANR Respondent
Through None.
$-31

W.P.(C) 4591/2017 & CM APPL. 20046-20047-2017
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner
Through Kumar Rajesh Singh, Standing Counsel for EDMC

VERSUS

RAM KUMAR &ANR Respondent
Through None.
$-33

W.P.(C) 4593/2017 & CM APPL. 20054-20055/2017
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner
Through Kumar RajeshSingh, Standing Counsel for EDMC

VERSUS

PRADEEP KUMAR &ORS Respondent
Through None.
$-35 . W.P.(C) 4596/2017 & CM APPL. 20066-20067/2017
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner
Through Kumar Rajesh Singh, Standing Counsel for EDMC

VERSUS

SUDHIRKUMAR& ANR Respondent
Through None.
2017:DHC:8142
'$-37 • ; • • , W.P.(C) 4617/2017 & CM APPL. 20131-20132/2017
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner
Through Kumar Rajesh Singh, Standing Counsel for EDMC
-

VERSUS

DHARAM PAL SINGH &ANR ..... Respondent
- Through - None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
24.05.20i7

CM APPL 19823/2017 IN W.P.rC^ 4547/2017

CM APPL. 20047/2017 IN W.P.fCl 4591/2017

CM APPL. 20055/2017 IN W.P.fC^ 4593/2017

CM APPL. 20067/2017 IN W.P.fCl 4596/2017

CM APPL. 20132/2017 IN W.P.fC^ 4617/2017
Exemptions are allowed, subject tojustexceptions.
The applications are disposed of W.P.rC) 4547/2017 & CM APPL 19822/2017

W.P.(C) 4591/2017 & CM APPL. 20046/2017
W.P.rC^ 4593/2017 & CM APPL. 20054/2017

W.P.(C) 4596/2017 & CM APPL. 20066/2017 iT' W.P.(C) 4617/2017 & CM APPL. 20131/2017
Vide the present petitions (W.P.(C) 4547/2017, W.P.(C) 4591/2017, W.P.(C) 4593/2017, W.P.(C) 4596/2017 and. W.P.(C) 4617/2017), the petitioner assails the common impugned orders dated 24.06.2016 of the
Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in No. MW/ED/161, 162, 163, 164,166,168,169,171, 175/2014/2525 whereby the East Delhi Municipal
Corporation through its Commissioner was directed to pay the arrears of minimuhi wages andcompensation to eachclaimant / workmen on account of
2017:DHC:8142 V r > the difference between the notified minimum wages and the wages actually paid to them in view ofthe factum that the contractor M/s. Gaurav Enterprises had failed to make the requisite payments of the wages to the claimants / workmen.
The details of the claims of the claimants / workmen are tabulated below : - s. Name of the Total Wages Less Total less
No. claimants wages payable Minimum payment received per month wages per difference per month month as due claimed

ORDER

1. Sh. Pradeep Rs.3327/- Rs.7254/- Rs.3937/- Rs.77189/- Kumar from from from January, January, January, 2013 to 2013 to 2013 to May, 2014 March, March, 2013

2013. (Rs.11811) Rs.7722/- Rs.4395/- April, April, 2013 2013 to to September, September,

2013. 2013. Rs.8086/- Rs.4759/- October, (Rs.26370/-) 2013 to October, March, 2013 to 2014 and March, 2014 Rs.8554/- Rs.28554/- April, and 2014 to Rs.5227/- May, 2014 April, 2014 to May, (Rs. 10454/-)

2. Sh. Ravi Rs.3327/- Rs.7254/- Rs.3937/- Rs.77189/- 2017:DHC:8142 r Kant from from from January, January, January, 2013 to 2013 to 2013 to May, 2014 March, March, 2013

2013. (Rs.11811) Rs.7722/- Rs.4395/- April, April, 2013 2013 to to September September,

3. Sh. Rakesh Rs.3327/- Rs.7254/- Rs.3937/- Rs.77189/- Kumar from from from January, January, January, 2013 to 2013 to 2013 to May, 2014 March, March, 2013

2013. (Rs.11811), Rs.7722/- Rs.4395/- April, April, 2013 - 2013 to to September September,

2013. 2013. Rs.8086/- Rs.4759/- October, (Rs.26370/-) 2013 to October, March, 2013 to 2014 and March, 2014 2017:DHC:8142 \ r b Rs.8554/- Rs.28554/- April, and 2014 to Rs.5227/- May, 2014 April, 2014 to May, (Rs. 10454/-)

4. Sh. Ram Rs.3327/- Rs.7254/- Rs.3937/- Rs.77189/- Kumar from from from January, January, January, 2013 to 2013 to 2013 to May, 2014 March, March, 2013

2013. (Rs.11811) Rs.7722/- Rs.4395/- April, April, 2013 2013 to to September September,

5. Sh. Ramesh Rs.3327/- Rs.7254/- Rs.3937/- Rs.77189/- Chand from from from January, January, January, 2013 to 2013 -to 2013 to May, 2014 March, March, 2013

2013. (Rs.11811) Rs.7722/- Rs.4395/- April, April, 2013 2017:DHC:8142 r" k:' 2013 to to September September,

6,902 characters total

6. Sh. Sudhir Rs.3327/- Rs.7254/- Rs.3937/- Rs.77189/- Kumar from from from January, January, January, 2013 to 2013 to 2013 to May, 2014 March, March, 2013

2013. (Rs. 11811) Rs.7722/- Rs.4395/- April, April, 2013 2013 to to September September,

2013. 2013. Rs.8086/- Rs.4759/- October,, (Rs.26370/-) 2013 to October, March, 2013 to 2014 and March, 2014 Rs.8554/- Rs.28554/- April, and 2014 to Rs.5227/- May, 2014 April, 2014 to May, (Rs. 10454/-) 2017:DHC:8142 Y

7. Sh. Rs.3327/- Rs.7254/- Rs.3937/- Rs.77189/- Dharmendra from from from Kumar January, January, January, 2013 to 2013 to 2013 to May, 2014 March, March, 2013 2013.. (Rs.11811) Rs.7722/- Rs.4395/- April, April, 2013 2013 to to September September,

8. Sh. Rs.3327/- Rs.7254/- Rs.3937/- Rs.77189/- Rameshwar from from from Dayal January, January, January, 2013 to 2013 to 2013 to May, 2014 March, March, 2013

2013. (Rs.11811) •• Rs.7722/- Rs.4395/- April, April, 2013 2013 to to September September,

2013. 2013. Rs.8086/- Rs.475.9/- October, (Rs.26370/-) 2013 to October, March, 2013 to 2017:DHC:8142 \ r V 2014 and Rs.8554/- April, 2014 to May, 2014 March, 2014 Rs.28554/and Rs.5227/- April, 2014 to May, (Rs. 10454/-)

9. Sh. Rs.3327/- Rs.7254/- Rs.3937/- Rs.77189/- Dhrampal from from from January, January, January, 2013 to 2013 to 2013. to May, 2014 March, March, 2013

2013. (Rs.11811) Rs.7722/- Rs.4395/- April, April, 2013 2013 to to September September,

2013. 2013. Rs.8086/- Rs.4759/- October, (Rs.26370/-) 2013 to October, March, 2013 to 2014 and March, 2014 Rs.8554/- Rs.28554/- April, and 2014 to Rs.5227/- May, 2014 April,. 2014 to May, (Rs. 10454/-) The petitioner thus seeks that in view of the contract agreement between the petitioner and M/s. Gaurav Enterprises, it was the duty of the M/s. Gaurav Enterprises to make thepayments ofthewages totheclaimants / workmen andthe petitioner thus cannot bepenalized. On a consideration of the submissions and on consideration of the 2017:DHC:8142 V impugned order dated 24.06.2016 of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and in view of the verdict of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. VS. Commissioner of Labour and Ors in Civil Appeal No. 11355 of 1996 decided on 03.09.1996 wherein vide specific observation in paragraph 7 ofthe said verdict, it is categorically observed that in relation to Section 21(4) ofthe Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which provides: - "(4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, then the, principal employer shall be liable to makepayment ofwages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contract or and recover the amount sopaidfrom the contractor either bydeductionfrom any amountpayable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor with further observations vide paragraph 8 of the said verdict to the effect that "In case the contractorfails to makepayment ofwages, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment ofwages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the workers. The principal employer, in turn, is entitled to recover J the amount so paidfrom the contractor. Thus, it is clear that under Section 21 also the responsibilityfor payment ofwages of ^ contract labourers is on the contractor, who employs them. In case ofany default by the contractor, the principal employer is required to make good the default, but at the cost of the contractorfrom whom the principal employer can recover the amount." as admittedly the contractor has failed to.pay the minimum wages due to the workmen, the principal employer, the SDMC cannot be absolved of its duty to pay make good the default, but it may recover the amount from the 2017:DHC:8142 V r

K. f lo contractor. In the circumstances, the submission made on behalf ofthe petitioner seeking waiver / reduction ofthe compensation imposed on the petitioner to be paid equivalent to one time of the difference balance amount of the minimum wages to the claimants / workmen as imposed by the impugned order u/s20 (3)(i) oftheMinimum Wages Act, 1948, is also declined. Inview thereof, there is no merit inthe abovesaid petitions. The petitions are declined and their accompanying stay applications are dismissed. - -—r- ANU MALHOTRA, J MAY 24, 2017

East Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dharmender Kumar & Anr

AI Summary

Full Text

ORDER

Contact Us for a Free Consultation