- (1.) Raising a short controversy, the present writ petition which arises out of proceedings under the Minimum Wages Act, has been filed against the order dated March 31, 1995 whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay the difference in between the minimum wages and wages actually paid by the labour contractor along with the compensation to the extent of 10 times of such difference to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 21 herein.
(2.) No dispute with regard to the first part of the order, so far as it directs the payment of the difference of wages in between the minimum wages and the actual wages is there in the present petition. The only grievance raised by the Petitioner is that on the facts of the present case, the Petitioner is not liable to pay compensation what to say 10 times of the differential amount.
(3.) The facts of the case may be noticed in brief; Respondent Nos. 3 to 21 filed 19 applications separately, under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act 1948. They claimed a total sum of Rs. 24600/- as difference between the wages actually paid and the minimum wages for work done on weekly rest days and 10 times of the total wages as compensation. These applications were contested by the Petitioner on the allegations that these persons were never employed by him. There was no relationship of-employer and the employee in between the Petitioner and the claimants therefore, they are not liable to pay any wages to these workmen. These workmen were employed by Labour Contractor who has been impleaded herein as Respondent No. 2. It is the Labour Contractor who is liable to pay the minimum wages to these claimants.;