ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) WRIT Petition No. 47303 of 1999 has been filed by the employers against the order dated 6.8.1999 of the Labour Commissioner under Rule 25(2) (v) (a) of U.P. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975 and the Writ Petition No. 13679 of 2000 has been filed by the workmen challenging the award dated 30.7.1999. The Writ Petition No. 47303 of 1999 came up for hearing before this Court which had been decided by this Court; on 11th July, 2003. The employer challenged the judgment of this Court dated 11th July, 2003 by means of Civil Appeal No. 1734 of 2004 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 14th September, 2005 has set aside the order of this Court and issued the following direction: "Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We find that two Writ Petitions were filed; one by the present appellant and the other by the present respondent. Writ Petitions filed by the appellant was numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47303/1999 and the respondent's Writ Petition was numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13679/2000. The Writ petition filed by the present appellant challenged the order of the Labour Commissioner while in the respondent's Writ Petition challenge was to the legality of the award made by the Industrial Tribunal dated 30.7.1999. The basic issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is the status of the workmen concerned, i.e., whether they were contract labourers or whether they were employees of the appellant-Corporation. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed while the Writ Petition filed by the respondent is still pending adjudication. The issues are interlinked an, therefore, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to take up both the Writ Petitions together for disposal. In this background, we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the Writ Petition to the High Court for consideration along with the other Writ Petition noted above. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the respective stand. Since the Writ Petitions are of the year 1999/2000, we request the High Court to dispose of the Writ Petitions as early as practicable preferably within six months from the communication of this Order. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs."
(2.) IN view of the aforesaid direction both these writ petitions are up for herring before this Court. The brief facts of the case are as under : The case set up by the employer is that they employed 118 workmen as contract labourer through the Contractor, Vasudev and company limited. The respondent-Union filed an application before the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of U.P. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975 with the claim that they are performing the same and similar duties as are being performed by other regularly appointed workmen, therefore, they are also entitled to the same wages as are being paid to the regular employees whereas in fact, they are getting Rs. 61.50 per day and those regular workmen are getting Rs. 118.40 per day. The Labour Commissioner before whom the aforesaid application was filed after issuing notices to the respective parities have arrived at the conclusion that since these workmen though employed through Contractor are entitled to payment of same wages as are being paid to those who are directly recruited by the petitioner-employer. It is this order which is under challenge in Writ Petition No. 47303 of 1999.
(3.) THE workmen have submitted before the Labour Commissioner that 118 workmen have been working in the Coal handling Plant of respondent No. 2 performing duties of the helper etc., but they have been engaged by the Contractor and they were performing regular duties since before the reference is made.;