- (1.) HEARD Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. M. M. Pal, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this writ application is to the order dated 04.12.1995, (Annexure -3), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh in P.W. Case No. 11 of 1990, whereby the application of the Respondent No. 1, namely, the workmen represented by the Union was allowed, holding them entitled to get wages for the period claimed as per N.C.W.A. III and directing further, that the petitioner, namely, the Management of the Central Coalfields Ltd. to pay the difference of wages to the workmen. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the judgment dated -22.02.2002, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh (Appellate Court) in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 1996 (Annexure -4), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Labour Court was dismissed. The impugned orders have been assailed on the grounds, inter alia, (i) That the findings of the Presiding officer, Labour Court, are not in consonance with the evidences on record and is, therefore, perverse. (ii) In absence of employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 -workmen, the courts below are not justified in law in directing the petitioner, instead of the Respondent No. 2, to make payment of the difference of wages to the workmen. (iii) That the learned court below has committed a serious error by making the petitioner vicariously liable on behalf of the contractor, for not making the payment of the N.C.W.A. III wages with effect from 01.01.1983 although admittedly N.C.W.A. III was finalized only on 11.11.1983 and was given to effect by Implementation Instruction No. 1, dated 21.11.1983.
(3.) THE facts of the petitioner's case are as follows: - (a) For the purposes of cleaning and washing the slurry ponds of the washeries, the petitioner -Company used to engage contractors to whom contracts used to be awarded through Tenders followed by Agreements. (b) The Contractor used to submit the bills from time to time which were verified by the representatives of the petitioner, and payments accordingly, used to be made to the contractors who in their turn, used to disburse wages as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the Agreement. Thus, the liability to pay wages to the workers, employed by the contractors, was entirely upon the Contractors. (c) In the coal Industry, wages is paid to the non -executive employees and workmen as per the wages fixed by the National Coal Wage Agreement (N.C.W.A.). (d) The Contractor under whom the Respondent -workmen were employed, used to disburse wages to the workmen as per the rate fixed by the N.C.W.A. and as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement entered into with the petitioner -Company (e) The N.C.W.A. II was enforced for about four years and thereafter, N.C.W.A. III was finalized by the Joint Tripartite Committee and the Coal Industry, on 11.11.1982 and the same was implemented by virtue of the implementation instructions No. 1, dated 21.11.1983, with effect from 01.01.1983. (f) The Respondent No. 1 -workmen filed an application on 06.05.1987 under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, principally against the Contractor (Respondent No. 2) and also against the petitioner, alleging therein, that the Contractor workers have not been paid their wages as per the N.C.W.A. III. (g) Claiming their right under the N.C.W.A. III, the workmen had demanded the arrears of wages at the wage rate stipulated under the N.C.W.A. III, from 01.01.1983 and not from 01.01.1984. (h) The petitioner contested the claim of the workmen denying its liability to pay any amount as claimed by the Respondent No. 1 on the ground that the liability, if any, is of the Contractor/Respondent No. 2 and therefore, it is not liable to pay the wages to the workmen. (i) At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Labour Court accepted the claim of the workman and by its impugned order (Annexure -4) and directed the petitioner to make payment of the difference of wages to the workmen. (j) Being aggrieved with the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 17 (1) (A) of the Payment of Wages Act, before the appellate authority. The appeal was however, dismissed by the impugned judgment (Annexure -3). Consequently, a demand for payment of Rs.10,53,000/ - was raised against the petitioner and a Distress Warrant was issued against the petitioner for realization of the amount through Execution Proceedings, which was initiated vide Misc. Case No. 01 of 2004 before the court of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. ;