East Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Nasim Ahmed & ANR

/ Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

$-25, 32 & + W.P.(C) 4548/2017 EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner Through Kumar Rajesh Singh, Standing Counsel for EDMC versus MANOHAR LAL & ANR Respondent Through None.

$-32 + W.P.(C) 4592/2017 & CM APPL. 20052-20053/2017 EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner Through Kumar Rajesh Singh, Standing Counsel for EDMC versus BANWARI LAL JANGID & ANR Respondent Through None.

$-34 + W.P.(C) 4595/2017 & CM APPL. 20060-20061/2017 LAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Petitioner Through Kumar Rajesh Singh, Standing Counsel for EDMC versus NASIM AHMED & ANR Respondent Through None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

ORDER

% 24.05.2017 CM APPL. 19825/2017 in W.P.tCI 4548/2017 CM APPL. 20053/2017 in W.P.fCI 4592/2017 CM APPL. 20061/2017 in W.P.tCl 4595/2017 Exemptions are allowed, subject to just exceptions. The applications are disposed of.

W.P.ICI 4548/2017 & CM APPL. 19824/2017

la "

n <Vr- W.P.(a 4592/2017 & CM APPL. 20052/2017 W.P.(C) 4595/2017 & CM APPL. 20060/2017 Vide the present petitions (W.P.(C) 4548/2017, W.P.(C) 4592/2017 and W.P.(C) 4595/2017), the petitioner assails the common impugned orders dated 31.05.2016 of the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in No. MW/ED/160, 165, 170, 172-174, 176, 177/2014/2103 whereby the East Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner was directed to pay the arrears of minim wages and compensation to each claimant / workmen on account of the difference between the notified minimum wages and the wages actually paid to them in view of the 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 1.

Sh. Deepak Kumar ffom ffom

-> May, (Rs.10454/-) 2.

Sh.

Om Prakash Sharma 2013 to ♦ ^ J 2013 to to May, (Rs.10454/-) 3.

Sh. Banwari Lai Jangid 2013 to

2013 to to May, (Rs. 10454/-) 4.

Sh. Manohar Lai

/ May, (Rs. 10454/-) 5.

Sh. Dasaram May, (Rs. 10454/-) 6.

Sh. Naseem Ahemad •\ L ..

&

F'

/ May, (Rs. 10454/-) 7.

Smt. Ganga Verma May, (Rs. 10454/-) 8.

Sh. Kapil

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 the payments of the wages to the claimants / workmen and the petitioner thus cannot be penalized. On a consideration of the submissions and on consideration of the 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 of the said verdict, it is categorically observed that in relation to Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which provides : - "(4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages

rwithin 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 contract or and recover the amount so paidfrom the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable 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 contractor fails to make payment of wages, 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 workers. The principal employer, in turn, is entitled to recover the amount so paid from the contractor.

Thus, it is clear that under Section 21 also the responsibility for payment of wages of contract labourers is on the contractor who employs them. In case of any default by the contractor, the principal employer is required to make good the default, but at the cost of the contractor from 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 contractor.

fn the circumstances, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner seeking waiver / reduction of the 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/s 20 (3)(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, is also declined. In view thereof, there is no merit in the abovesaid petitions.

■1 The petitions are declined and their accompanying stay applications are dismissed.

ANU MALHOTRaTj^"^ MAY 24, 2017/mk A.

i; .