SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA, CALCUTTAversusTULSI DAS BAURI AND ORS.

A              SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPN.
                         OF INDIA, CALCUTTA
                                          v.
                         TULSI DAS BAURI AND ORS.

                                  APRIL 21, 1997
B
                  (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)

            Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1973:

            Payment of wages to contract labour-The term 'wages' includes
C balance of wages or a"ears thereof-Principal employer is required to pay the
    wages--Thereafter he may recover it from the contractor.

            Words and Phrases :

D        'Wages'-Meaning of in the context of Contract Labour (Regulation
    and Abolition) Act, 1973.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3136 of
    1997.

            From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.95 of the Calcutta High
E Court in F.MA.T. No. 2198 of 1995.

            Y.P. Rao for the Appellant.

            Bijan Kr. Ghosh for the Respondents.

F           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Leave granted.

         This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
    Bench of the High Court of Calcutta passed on September 6, 1995 in
G   FMAT No. 2098/94.

          The undisputed facts are that respondent Nos. 1.91 were engaged as
    contract labour by Bhagwat Prasad Choudhary, Respondent No. 94 and
    while they were working, they were refused payment of the full wages. As
    a consequence, they laid claim for payment of the amount. Ultimately, the
H   Division Bench has directed by the impugned judgment that the appellant
                                        892
1
           SR. REGN,. MANAGER F.C.I., CALCUTIAv. T.D.V. BAURI                893

    shall be liable to pay the arrears of the balance of the amount of the wages.   A
          Shri V .P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends
    that the arrears of wages are not wages under Section 21 of the Contract
    Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1973 and that, therefore, the
    appellant is not liable to make the payment to the respondents. We. find
                                                                         1
    no force in the contention.                                                     B
           Section 21 postulates the responsibility for payment of wages. Under
    sub-section (1) a contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to
    each worker employed by him as contract labour and such wages shall be
    paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed. Under sub-
    section (4), in case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within       C
    the prescribed period or makes short payment, then the principal employer
    shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due,
    as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and
    recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deducting from
    any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt            D
    payable by the contractor. That liability has been prescribed under sub-sec-
    tion (2) thereof which says that every principal employer shall nominate a
    representative duly authorised by him to be present at the time of disbur-
    sement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such
    representative to certify the amounts paid as wages in such manner as may
    be prescribed.                                                                  E
           Thus it could be seen that the principal employer is statutory respon-
    sible to ensure payment of the wages as per the law. In case the contractor
    commits default in the payment of the wages, the principal employer is
    made responsible for due payment and in case such payment is made, he
    is entitled to have it recovered by deducting from any amount payable to        F
    the contractor under the contract or as a debt payable by the contractor.

          Thus, it is clear that the principal employer is required to pay the
    wages. The term 'wages' includes the balance of wages or arrears thereof.
    Under these circumstances, we do not think that it is a case warranting         G
    interference.

           The appeal is dismissed. No costs.

    G.N.                                                      Appeal dismissed.