High Court of Meghalaya
Date Of Order : 27.08.2024 vs M/S Prudent Epc Pvt. Ltd on 27 August, 2024
Author: H.S.Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew
2024:MLHC:768
Serial No.34
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C). No.69 of 2024
Date of Order : 27.08.2024
The North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional
Institute of Health & Medical Sciences
(NEIGRIHMS), represented by the Director.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. M/s Prudent EPC Pvt. Ltd
91/B, Near Vishal Tower NO.2
SG Barve Marg, Kamgar Nagar
Kurla (East) Mumbai: 400024.
2. Sh. Napoleon Mawphniang
Rep of workmen
Syadheh, Ri Bhoi
Meghalaya - 793105.
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Chief Justice (Acting)
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Dr. N.Mozika, Sr. Adv. with
L.M.D.Marak, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.Pandey, Adv. for R 1.
Ms. B.Sun, Adv. for R 2.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
1
2024:MLHC:768
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The writ petitioner (NEIGRIHMS) by way of the instant writ
application has assailed the order dated 05-12-2023, passed by the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Guwahati in the application No.
G/R08/2023, whereby the Regional Labour Commissioner had issued
directions for payment of difference of wages of ₹7,74,594/- and
compensation amount of ₹2,63,000/- totaling to ₹10,37,594/-, directly to
the workers as per the list given in the said order.
2. Dr. N.Mozika, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. L.M.D.Marak,
learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the
respondent No. 1 had entered into a contract with the respondent No. 2.
w.e.f., 01-07-2022 for annual comprehensive maintenance contract of fire
protection system for a period of five years, and as per the agreement the
contractor was required to deploy 18 workmen by 30 days from the date of
signing the contract agreement. He submits that thereafter, issues arose
with regard to the deployment of experienced personnel to undertake the
maintenance work and consequent to these issues, the respondent No. 2 as
workers' representative had then filed an application before the Regional
Labour Commissioner complaining that the minimum wages as prescribed
2024:MLHC:768
had not been paid to the workers by the said contractor (respondent No. 1),
and that the respondent No. 1, was arrayed as a party respondent apart
from the writ petitioner in the said proceedings. It is further submitted that
the respondent No.1 apart from making two appearances did not take part
in the proceedings any further, and the result was that the writ petitioner
was saddled with the entire responsibility of clearing the dues of the
workers by the Regional Labour Commissioner. Learned Sr. counsel
asserts that the respondent No. 1, had already been advanced adequate
amounts to cover the wages, and that if any amount is to be paid apart from
the admitted amount due, the same was to be complied with by the
respondent No. 1. He therefore submits that as the respondent No. 1 i.e.,
the Labour Contractor is present before this Court in the instant
proceedings, he be directed to pay a portion of the shortfall due to the
respondent No.2.
3. Mr. S.Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has
submitted that on the issues that have arisen between the writ petitioner
and the respondent No. 1, certain claims have been made which are yet to
be resolved and that further steps would be undertaken in this regard. The
learned counsel has then placed reliance on the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, wherein at Section 21 (4) he submits
it has been provided that in case the contractor fails to make payment of
2024:MLHC:768
wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, then the
principal employer shall be liable to make the payment of wages in full or
the unpaid balance due. The principal employer, he submits, in this
instance, is the writ petitioner and as such by operation of the said section,
it is the writ petitioner who is to satisfy the amount presently, and the final
liability be subject to resolution of the pending dispute between the parties.
4. Ms. B.Sun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
No. 2 workers, has submitted that whatever the dispute between the writ
petitioner and the respondent No. 1, the grievance of the workers still
remains, inasmuch as, the amounts due and allowed by the Regional
Labour Commissioner are yet to be paid to them. She therefore prays that
notwithstanding any other circumstances, directions be issued for
expeditious disbursal of the said amounts to the workers.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials
on record. By the impugned order, as submitted, it is noted that there is a
specific direction given to the writ petitioner to pay the difference of wages
and compensation and to file a compliance report thereafter. Though it has
been submitted that the respondent No. 1 did not take part in the
proceedings effectively, and as such, has resulted in the impugned order
being directed against the writ petitioner, the fact that cannot be ignored is
that by operation of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
2024:MLHC:768
1970, the burden to clear the short fall in payment falls on the writ
petitioner who is the principal employer in this regard, though remedies
has provided for recovery in the said section itself. For the sake of
convenience, Section 21 (4) of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow:
"21(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 under any
contract or as a debt payable by the contractor."
6. This Court has also noted the submission of learned Sr. counsel for
the petitioner that as per their calculation against the claims of respondent
No. 1, the admitted amount of only ₹5,98,966/- is due which they are
prepared to transfer to the workers.
7. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the facts of the
case at hand and is alive to the aspect that the only sufferers in this entire
transaction presently, are the workers who have not been given their due
wages for which the petitioner and respondent are and were liable to pay.
8. In these circumstances therefore, it is deemed appropriate at this
stage that the writ petitioner be directed to pay the entire amount of
₹10,37,594/- to the workers as entitled and as given in the table contained
in the impugned order. For any other issues or claims and counter claims
2024:MLHC:768
that may still exist, the matter is to be settled by the writ petitioner and the
respondent No. 1 in accordance with law.
9. With the above noted directions and without disturbing the
impugned order, the matter stands closed and disposed of.
Chief Justice (Acting)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
