- (1.) This order shall dispose of four writ petitions, bearing CWP Nos. 10331, 8492, 8493 of 1997 and 15401 of 2000. CWP No. 10331 of 1997 has been filed by the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Haryana and the District Manager of its District Office, Kurukshetra, challenging the order dated 2.1.1997 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) (respondent No. 2 herein), whereby it was held that the workmen (herein after referred to as 'the contract workmen'), who were employed through contractor were performing the same or similar work as was being performed by the watchmen directly employed by the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the FCI'), who is the principal employer, therefore, they were entitled to same wages, as were being given to regular directly employed watchmen by the principal employer.
(2.) Cwp Nos. 8492, 8493 of 1997 and 15401 of 2000 have been filed by the workmen seeking direction to the FCI to implement the order dated 2.1.1997.
(3.) The contract workmen were engaged by the FCI through contractor as Security Guards at various godowns, maintained by the FCI in the State of Haryana. They were being paid at D.C. rates. Feeling aggrieved that though they were performing same duties and functions, as was being performed by the regular directly employed watchmen, they were being paid less wages, the contract workmen filed two separate writ petitions, i.e. CWP Nos. 1480 and 3886 of 1995, before this court, wherein they claimed that in view of Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), they were entitled for the same wages as paid to a regular employee by the principal employer. A preliminary objection was raised by the FCI that the contract workmen had not exhausted the alternative remedy, available to them, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and that the question as to whether the contract workmen were performing same and similar duties and functions, as was being performed by the watchmen directly employed by the principal employer, is a question of fact, which could not have been gone into in the writ jurisdiction. Vide order dated 22.7.1996 (Annexure P-1), those writ petitions were disposed of both the writ petitions, with a direction to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) to consider and decide the applications of the contract workmen in terms of Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) of the Rules, within a stipulated time. It was further ordered that in case, the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) comes to the conclusion that the contract workmen were performing the same or similar kind of work as was being performed by the workmen directly employed by the principal employer, they shall be entitled to the same wages and other benefits.;