- (1.) AN application for payment of wages for the month of April and May, 2010 amounting to Rs.2,40,000/ - was filed by 16 workers against the contractor and the principal employer under Section 3 of the U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1978). It was alleged that the workers, who were working as Malis, Sweepers and Cooks in the Guest House were not paid their wages and that the employers had committed a default. Notices were issued by the Prescribed Authority to the contractor as well as to the principal employer. The principal employer filed his objections contending that there is no master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the workers in question and that these workers were engaged by a contractor who was licensed under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1970).
(2.) THE contractor also appeared and filed his objections admitting that the workers in question were engaged by him and also contended that these workers never came forward to collect their cheques, which are still lying with him and, consequently, there was no wilful default in the payment of wages. The contractor also contended that these workers went on an illegal strike. The contractor, accordingly, produced the wage bill and deposited the cheques of each individual workers and requested the authority to disburse the wages to its workers. The matter should have ended there but the authority in his over exuberance found that the wages paid by the contractor to its workers was not in accordance with the notification issued by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act and accordingly held that the contractor was liable to pay the wages to its workers as per the notification and was liable to pay the difference of the amount. The Prescribed Authority by the impugned order issued a recovery certificate for recovery of Rs.1,26,993/ - being the difference of the wages paid by the contractor and the amount as per the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act. The Prescribed Authority also held that since the principal employer was responsible for the payment of wages under Section 21 of the Act of 1970, the authority directed that the recovery be made from the principal employer. The principal employer, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Narain, the learned counsel for the worker -respondent no.3.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Act is applicable to the industrial establishment as a whole and that the default in the wage bill is for all the workers in the establishment. It was contended that the Act was not applicable for an individual worker. In the instant case, only the workers of the contractor have filed the claim application, whereas, the petitioner, being a sugar factory, employs a large number of workers and, consequently, the application under Section 3 of the Act of 1978 was not maintainable.;