[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Lokrajya Swayam Rojgar Seva Sahakari ... vs Nandkumar Yashwant Gotarne And Ors on 16 April, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:17754
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10551 OF 2025
Lokrajya Swayam Rojgar Seva Sahakari
Sanstha Limited, having its registered
office at Survey No.110/9B, Pawar
Heights-F4, Shankar Math, Hadapsar,
Pune 400 014, through its Chairman ... Petitioner
Vs.
ATUL 1. Shramik Janata Sangh,
GANESH
KULKARNI Office Address Room No.29-30,
Digitally signed
by ATUL GANESH
"A" Wing, Haji Habib Building,
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.04.16
13:21:59 +0530
First Floor, 182, Naigaon Cross Road,
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 014
2. Regional Mental Hospital,
Thane (West), District Thane
through its Medical Superintendent ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2646 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.10551 OF 2025
Shramik Janta Sangh ... Applicant
In the matter between
Lokrajya Swayam Rojgar Seva
Sahakari Sanstha Limited ... Petitioner
Vs.
Shramik Janata Sangh & Anr. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.4469 OF 2026
1
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:45:25 :::
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
Lokrajya Swayam Rojgar Seva Sahakari
Sanstha Limited, having its registered
office at Survey No.110/9B, Pawar
Heights-F4, Shankar Math, Hadapsar,
Pune 400 014, through its Chairman ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Nandkumar Yashwant Gotarne
& 67 others, through Jagdish Khairalia,
the General Secretary of Shramik
Janata Sangh in the capacity of a
registered trade Union), having its
office at Room No.28/29, Haji Habib
Building, Naigaon Cross Road,
Dadar, Opposite Fire Brigade,
Mumbai 400 014
2. Regional Mental Hospital,
Thane (West), District Thane
through its Medical Superintendent
3. Chetan B. Jagtap,
Authority under the provisions of
Minimum Wages Act, and the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Thane
Office Complex Building, 6th Floor,
Mulund Check Naka, Wagale Estate,
Thane (West) 400 604 ... Respondents
Dr. D.S. Hatle with Mr. Deepak Jamsandekar and Mr.
Umesh Chavan for the petitioner in WP/10551/2025 &
for the respondent in IA & for the petitioner in
WPST/4469/2026.
Ms. Sudha Bharadwaj i/by Hamza Lakdawala for the
applicant in IA & for respondent No.1 in
WP/10551/2025.
2
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:45:25 :::
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
Mrs. Neha Bhide, GP with Mrs. V.R. Raje, AGP for
respondent No.2-State in WP/10551/2025.
Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for respondent No.2-State in
WPST/4469/2026.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : APRIL 10, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 16, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. By the present Writ Petition No. 10551 of 2025 instituted
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner Union has assailed the Judgment and Order dated 11
June 2024 passed by the Industrial Court below Exhibit O-7 in
Complaint (ULP) No. 126 of 2021, which complaint had been
instituted by respondent No. 1 under Section 28 read with Item 9
of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions
and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
2. By Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 4469 of 2026, also preferred
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner Union has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 10
December 2025 passed by respondent No. 3 in Application No.
MWA/20(2)/Recovery/01/2005 instituted by respondent No. 1
under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, whereby
the said application came to be allowed.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the
present writ petitions, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that the
petitioner Union has been engaged by respondent No. 2 for
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
carrying out housekeeping and cleaning work at its establishment
situated at Thane, and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner has
been executing such work through employees engaged by it for the
said purpose. It is the case of the petitioner that on 6 August
2021, the employees engaged by the petitioner formed a Union in
the name and style of Shramik Janata Sangha, and thereafter the
said Union instituted a complaint alleging unfair labour practices
against the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 under Section 28
read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.
On 21 October 2021, the petitioner filed its reply below Exhibit
CA-3 denying the allegations made in the complaint and prayed
for dismissal thereof by contending that its engagement was
governed by the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970. In the month of October 2021, respondent
No. 2 also filed its reply denying any employer employee
relationship with the workers engaged by the petitioner. However,
respondent No. 2 admitted that the petitioner had been engaged
by it under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 and that the petitioner was holding a valid
licence issued by the competent authority.
4. On 6 September 2023, respondent No. 1 adduced evidence
of one Dinanath Keshav Desale by tendering his affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief. The said witness was thereafter cross
examined by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2. Upon
conclusion of evidence and hearing of arguments, the Industrial
Court by its Order dated 11 June 2024 partly allowed the
complaint. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in Writ
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
Petition No. 10551 of 2025.
5. It is stated that the certified copy of the said Judgment and
Order was received by the petitioner on 10 February 2025.
Thereafter, on 8 May 2025, a Board Resolution came to be passed
authorising Shri Vijay Janaba Kamble to institute Writ Petition No.
10551 of 2025 on behalf of the petitioner. It is further the case of
the petitioner that pursuant to the Order dated 11 June 2024,
respondent No. 1 filed Application No.
MWA/20(2)/Recovery/01/2025 on 12 February 2025 under
Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in prescribed Form
No. IV, seeking compensation as well as recovery of the differential
amount between the minimum wages fixed by the Government
and the wages allegedly actually paid. The petitioner thereafter, by
communication dated 28 March 2025, informed respondent No. 3
that the issue involved was already sub judice. On 10 February
2025, respondent No. 3 proceeded to pass an order in Application
No. MWA/20(2)/Recovery/01/2025, which order has been
impugned in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 4469 of 2026.
6. Mr. Hatle, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner,
submitted that the direction issued by the Industrial Court
requiring the petitioner to make payment of wages to the workers
of the complainant Union in accordance with the applicable
minimum wages notification, as contained in the order passed
below Exhibit U-2, is wholly unsustainable in law and cannot be
maintained. According to him, payment of minimum wages being
in the nature of statutory wages earned by the workmen, the
primary responsibility for ensuring such payment rests upon the
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
principal employer when the provisions of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 are applicable. It is,
therefore, his submission that liability for payment of minimum
wages cannot be fastened exclusively upon the contractor, but the
principal employer is equally under a statutory obligation to
ensure that wages are paid in accordance with the rates prescribed
for the notified industry under the notifications issued by the
Government of Maharashtra from time to time. He, therefore,
contended that the direction issued only against the contractor,
namely the petitioner, is erroneous and legally untenable.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the Industrial Court
failed to take into consideration the mandate of Section 21(4) of
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which
governs the responsibility for payment of wages and provides that
where the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the
prescribed period or makes short payment, the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or of the unpaid
balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed
by the contractor, and thereafter recover the amount so paid from
the contractor by deduction from any amount payable under the
contract or as a debt recoverable from the contractor. On the basis
of the said statutory provision, it is contended that the Industrial
Court could not have passed an order against the petitioner alone
and, at the highest, respondent No. 2 ought to have first been
directed to release the requisite amount to the petitioner, and upon
failure of the petitioner to disburse the same, respondent No. 2
ought to have been directed to make payment directly. According
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
to the petitioner, the failure of the Industrial Court to adopt such
course renders the impugned order legally flawed.
8. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that unless
corresponding payment is made by respondent No. 2 in its capacity
as principal employer, it would be impossible for the petitioner to
pay wages or enhanced wages to the employees, unless the
requisite funds are first disbursed in favour of the petitioner for
such purpose.
9. Per contra, Ms. Bharadwaj, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent No. 1, submitted that the Maharashtra Civil Services
Rules are not applicable to the concerned workmen since they are
engaged through a contractor and their service conditions are
governed by the labour legislations applicable to contract labour. It
is submitted that respondent No. 2 is a registered contractor and
falls within the ambit of an industrial establishment. Inviting
attention to the provisions of Sections 12 and 21(4) of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, learned
counsel contended that the wages payable to the concerned
workers are statutorily regulated thereunder. According to him,
respondent No. 2 is responsible to pay wages at the prescribed rate
within time and respondent No. 1 is also under an obligation to
ensure proper regulation of such wages, and in the event of default
on the part of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 would be liable
to discharge such payment. By referring to the provisions of the
Minimum Wages Act applicable to local authorities and categories
such as sweepers and scavengers, learned counsel submitted that
the workers are entitled to wages along with admissible
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
allowances and house rent allowance. It is further submitted that
in absence of any rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondents,
directions are required to be issued for payment of arrears
recoverable by the complainant and the claim towards differential
wages deserves to be allowed.
10. Mrs. Raje, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing
for the State submitted that wages are being paid in accordance
with the rates applicable to the hospital industry and the
governing rules and regulations in that regard, and there is no
requirement to determine wages in accordance with the rates
prescribed under the local authority minimum wages notifications.
It is further submitted that the signatory to the complaint is a
different person having no direct concern with the claim raised
and that such person has not entered the witness box or adduced
evidence in support of the complaint. It is pointed out that the
witness examined on behalf of the complainant has admitted
receipt of salary and benefits regularly from respondent No. 2 and,
therefore, according to the State, no unfair labour practice can be
said to have been committed by respondent No. 2 at any point of
time.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
11. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
having gone through the material placed on record, this Court is of
the view that the real question is about the responsibility for
payment of wages to the workmen engaged through the
contractor, and whether the Industrial Court committed any error
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
in directing payment of wages at the rate of minimum wages fixed
by the competent authority.
12. For the purpose of adjudicating the issues involved in the
present matter, it would be necessary to reproduce Section 21 of
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, as the
same has direct bearing upon the controversy in question. Section
21, which deals with responsibility for payment of wages, reads
thus:
"21. Responsibility for payment of wages.-
(1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages
to each worker employed by him as contract labour and such
wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may
be prescribed.
(2) Every principal employer shall nominate a
representative duly authorised by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall
be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts
paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the
disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorised
representative of the principal employer.
(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 make payment of
wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be,
to the contract labour employed by the contractor and
recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by
deduction from any amount payable to the contractor any
contract as a debt payable by the contractor."
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
13. Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act, 1970 deals with the statutory responsibility regarding
payment of wages to contract labour and delineates the obligations
of the contractor as well as the principal employer. Sub-section (1)
provides that the contractor shall be responsible for payment of
wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour and
such wages are required to be paid within the prescribed period.
Thus, the primary obligation to disburse wages is cast upon the
contractor.
14. Sub-section (2) further mandates that every principal
employer shall nominate an authorised representative to remain
present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor,
and such representative is required to certify the amounts paid as
wages in the prescribed manner. The legislative intent behind this
provision is to ensure supervision by the principal employer over
the process of wage disbursement so that the contract labour is not
deprived of wages.
15. Sub-section (3) casts a corresponding duty upon the
contractor to ensure that wages are disbursed in the presence of
the authorised representative of the principal employer. The
conjoint reading of sub sections (2) and (3) makes it evident that
though the contractor is the person obliged to pay wages, the
statute imposes supervisory responsibility upon the principal
employer to monitor such payment.
16. Most importantly sub-section (4) provides that in the event
the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
prescribed period or makes short payment, the principal employer
shall become liable to make payment of the full wages or the
unpaid balance, as the case may be, to the contract labour, and
thereafter recover the amount so paid from the contractor either
by deduction from amounts payable under the contract or as a
debt recoverable from the contractor. This provision makes it clear
that while the initial responsibility to pay wages lies upon the
contractor, the statute creates a secondary liability upon the
principal employer to safeguard the interests of the contract labour
in cases of default by the contractor. Therefore the scheme of
Section 21 demonstrates that the contractor bears the primary
liability for payment, whereas the principal employer bears a
secondary liability which arises upon failure of the contractor. The
legislative object is to ensure that the contract labour does not
suffer deprivation of wages merely because of inter se defaults
between the contractor and the principal employer.
17. The petitioner has argued that the principal employer cannot
wash away its hands because the workmen were engaged through
a contractor. Section 21 of the Contract Labour Act shows that the
contractor is the first person responsible to pay wages. At the same
time, the principal employer must appoint an authorised
representative to remain present at the time of disbursement. He
has to certify the amount paid. These provisions show that the law
expects supervision from the principal employer. Therefore, the
contention of the petitioner that the principal employer has no role
in the payment of wages is not correct. But the same provision also
does not support the further argument that the Industrial Court
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
could not direct the contractor to pay wages. The statute plainly
says that the contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages.
That is the primary obligation. Only if the contractor fails, the
liability of the principal employer steps in.
18. The petitioner has also submitted that the Labour Court did
not properly apply Section 21(4) and therefore it ought to have
first directed respondent No.2 to make payment to the petitioner,
and only on default should the payment burden have shifted.
Section 21(4) does not say that the principal employer must first
pay the entire amount through the contractor. What it says is that
if the contractor fails to make payment within the prescribed
period or makes short payment, then the principal employer shall
be liable to make payment of the wages or unpaid balance due to
the contract labour. This cannot be turned into a protection for the
contractor to escape the obligation which the statute itself places
on it. The petitioner cannot insist that unless respondent No.2 first
disburses the money to it, it is powerless to pay wages. Such a
stand would defeat the plain object of the Act. A contractor who
undertakes labour supply work does so under law and under
contract. It must arrange its affairs so that statutory wages are paid
in time. If the principal employer fails in its own duty under the
Act, the workmen still cannot be left unpaid. Therefore, the
petitioner's attempt to shift the entire burden onto respondent
No.2 is not supported by the statutory language.
19. The petitioner argued that payment of minimum wages is
the prime responsibility of the principal employer and therefore a
direction only against the contractor is erroneous. The contractor
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
is the direct employer for the purpose of wage payment. The
principal employer has a secondary liability. The contractor cannot
be allowed to say that because the principal employer may be
answerable, the contractor need not satisfy the wage claim. The
whole purpose of the Act is to ensure that workmen receive wages
regularly. If the contractor is allowed to delay payment on the plea
that the principal employer has not released money, then the
workmen would become the sufferers.
20. The respondent No.1 has rightly argued that the workmen
were engaged through the contractor and therefore the service
conditions are to be examined under the labour laws applicable to
contract labour. The reliance on the Contract Labour Act is
justified. Once the relationship of contract labour is admitted, the
provisions relating to payment of wages cannot be ignored. The
contention that the Minimum Wages Act applies and that the
workers are entitled to wages according to the notified rates is also
legally correct. If the wages actually paid are less than the
minimum wages fixed by law, then the difference becomes
recoverable. The petitioner has not shown any legal authority by
which such entitlement can be denied merely because the work is
being performed through a contractor.
21. When all these aspects are taken together, the conclusion
becomes clear. The Industrial Court did not commit any
jurisdictional error in holding the petitioner responsible for
payment of wages in accordance with the minimum wage
notification. The Industrial Court was justified in granting relief on
the basis of the material before it and the claim for differential
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
wages was properly entertained. The objections raised by the
petitioner do not disclose any perversity, illegality, or patent error
requiring interference in writ jurisdiction.
22. Since the petition challenging the Judgment and Order dated
10 June 2024 passed in Complaint (ULP) No.126 of 2021 has been
considered and the said judgment has been upheld by this Court, it
follows that the proceedings culminating in the Judgment and
Order dated 10 December 2025 arise merely in execution and
implementation of the aforesaid substantive adjudication. Once the
principal order forming the basis of the recovery proceedings is
sustained, the consequential proceedings initiated for enforcement
thereof cannot independently survive for separate challenge on the
same grounds. In such circumstances, no separate interference is
warranted with the Judgment and Order dated 10 December 2025,
the same being consequential in nature and arising directly out of
execution of the earlier adjudicatory order. Hence, the petition
assailing the Judgment and Order dated 10 December 2025 also
deserves to be dismissed.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons
recorded hereinabove, the following order is passed:
(i) Both the writ petitions being devoid of merits stand
dismissed;
(ii) The Judgment and Order dated 11 June 2024 passed
by the Industrial Court below Exhibit O-7 in Complaint
(ULP) No. 126 of 2021 is hereby upheld;
wp10551-2025 & connected-J.doc
(iii) The Judgment and Order dated 10 December 2025
passed by respondent No. 3 in Application No.
MWA/20(2)/Recovery/01/2025 is also hereby confirmed;
(iv) The petitioner shall comply with the directions issued
under the aforesaid orders and shall make payment of the
differential wages and consequential dues, if not already
paid, to the concerned workmen within a period of four
weeks from the date of this order;
(vi) Rule in both petitions stands discharged.
(vii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
24. All pending interim applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
