IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26392 of 2000 Between: Anl Parcel Service, (A Unit of Alloy Nitrieds Ltd.,,) Rep by its Managing Director, 3-5-874/6/5, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Uppu Suryanarayana S/o. Chinna Krishna Pasivedala Kovvuru Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 Asst Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. GHANTA RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for Respondent No.1:NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent No.2: AGP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 29.08.2000 in M.W.No.319 of 1996. Heard Sri Ghanta Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour for respondent No.2. No one appeared for respondent No.1. The petitioner is running a parcel service in APSRTC Bus Complex, Kovvuru. Respondent No.1 worked in the said parcel service from 1989 to 1993. He approached respondent No.2 with an application under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short ‘the 1948 Act’) for payment of minimum wages. Respondent No.1 pleaded in his application that he worked as an employee in ANL Parcel Service, APSRTC Bus Complex, Kovvuru from 1989 till 27.04.1991 under Sri V.V.Rao, the then agent of the petitioner company and after suspension of the said agent, he was appointed as Office in-charge of the petitioner company from 1991 to 1993. He further pleaded that he was paid a meagre salary of Rs.600/- per month. Therefore, he claimed statutory minimum wages under the provisions of the 1948 Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner, it denied the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. After detailed examination of the evidence and hearing the arguments of the parties, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order, whereby he directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.16,202.89ps. towards difference of wages for the period from 22.04.1991 to 11.02.1993 and compensation of Rs.32,405.78ps. at twice the differential wages totalling to Rs.48,608.67ps. At the hearing, Sri G.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that respondent No.2 committed serious error in awarding differential wages against the petitioner in the absence of any employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 analysed the evidence adduced by the parties in detail and held that even in the absence of employer-employee relationship, the facts on record are clear to the effect that the petitioner is the principal employer and carries out its business through the agents and that respondent No.1 worked under one such agent (contractor) of the petitioner and was paid less wages than the wages fixed by the Government. Respondent No.2 placed reliance on the provisions of Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ‘the 1970 Act’) and held that as the agent appointed by the petitioner failed to pay the minimum wages to respondent No.1, being principal employer, the petitioner is liable to pay the differential wages and recover the same from its agent. In the light of this finding of respondent No.2, the plea of the petitioner raised before respondent No.2 and reinforced by the learned counsel on its behalf at the hearing that in the absence of employer-employee relationship, the petitioner is not liable to pay the differential wages under the 1948 Act, pales into insignificance. Respondent No.2, as noted above, fixed the responsibility on the petitioner as the principal employer, accepting it’s claim that respondent No.1 was employed by the petitioner’s agent. Section 21(4) of the 1970 Act reads as under: “In case of contractor failing to make payment of wages within 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 deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor.” From the above-reproduced provision, it is clear that if the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, it is the principal employer’s responsibility to make payment of wages in full or unpaid balance due subject to his right to recover the amount so paid, from the contractor. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the provisions of the 1970 Act are attracted to the activities of the petitioner. In view of the admitted failure of the agent of the petitioner to pay minimum wages to respondent No.1, the petitioner is under obligation to pay the differential wages under Section 21(4) of the 1970 Act. In this view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order passed by respondent No.2 and for the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as there was serious dispute regarding the petitioner’s liability to pay the minimum wages, respondent No.2 is not justified in awarding compensation to respondent No.1. While the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is not present to support award of compensation, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel, interests of justice would be met, if the order of respondent No.2 to the extent of award of compensation to respondent No.1 is set aside. On the premises as above, the writ petition is partly allowed by setting aside the award of compensation and confirming the order to the extent of awarding differential wages in favour of respondent No.1. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni