- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 4. The employer -petitioner (Damodar Valley Corporation) has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 20.11.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in M.J. Case No. 2 of 1994 (R) allowing the application filed by the Malindo Marandi Versus State Of Bihar respondent no. 4 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directing the petitioner to pay difference of wages due etc.
(2.) THE respondent no. 4 filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 20.7.1994 claiming himself to be a workman of the respondent no. 3 who was a contractor under the petitioner. His case was that he was a licensed electrical Supervisor working under the contractor of the petitioner. Therefore, according to him the petitioner was his principal employer. His further case is that the petitioner awarded various electrical contracts in favour of the respondent no. 3, which were of permanent and regular nature. He was appointed as B - Super -visor as far back as 25.7.1988 on a total monthly salary of Rs. 1000/ - consolidated which was raised to Rs. 1200/ - per month which was less than the minimum rates of wages. On raising claim for enhancement of wages, he has been wrongfully and illegally removed from the service w.e.f. 1.6.1994 against which he has been taking legal action. He worked even beyond his duty hours but no overtime was paid between 25.7.1988 to 31.5.1994. He was also not paid one month 'snotice and the retrenchment compensation. The case of the petitioner was that the respondent no. 4 has to establish his existing right to receive the amount from the contractor (respondent no. 3) and settle the claim with the contractor. There is no employer -employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent no. 4. In any event the claim is not within the ambit of, definition of wages, and Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) THE case of the contractor (respondent no. 3) was that the respondent no. 4 was purely part -time supervisor in electrical department as he was possessing licence granted by the Bihar Government; he was working with other companies simultaneously; he was paid not less than prescribed minimum wages; he being a part time supervisor doing work with other employers also, question of retrenchment and payment of other claims did not arise.;