A VICTOR Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LIMITED; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES, BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED AND SPL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, the petitioner is working as a contract labour and his service has been lent by the 4th respondent Labour Contractor's Society, Trichy.

(2.) In the present writ petition, he seeks to implement the circular dated 28.07.2005, before the true employer, wherein the wages for the persons, who were engaged contract labour, were revised in the various establishments of BHEL, as directed by the Headquarters. It is the contention of the petitioner that equal pay for equal work will apply and persons doing similar work must get same wages.

(3.) Notice of motion was ordered on 06.02.2007. On notice from this Court, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 20.08.2007, disputing the locus-standi of the petitioner from claiming any amount more than what is fixed by the Headquarters. It is also stated that the petitioner was not directly employed by them and the Circular, which is impugned, is the internal circular between the Headquarters and the Unit. In any event, in case where a contract workman is paid less than the wages payable to a similarly placed workman by the principal employer the act itself is provided for a remedy under Rule 25(v)a of the Tamil Nadu Contract Labour Rules, 1975. In such circumstances, it is for the registering authority to go into the question as to whether the workmen employed by the contractor performed the same or similar kind of work, as the workman directly employed by the principal employer. It is necessary to extract Rule 25(v)(a)(b) of the said Rules, which reads as follows: