IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 1858 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 03.02.2009 Food Corporation of India ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the order dated 27.12.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh vide which 41 workers have been held entitled to the same benefit as has been granted to 105 workmen who had been brought under the Direct Payment System by the FCI for the period 1.4.1997 to 6.9.1997. Counsel for the petitioner contends that 146 workmen were employed by respondent No.2-Dilbag Singh, Contractor under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 1971 Rules). These 146 workmen continued to work for the Contractor and performed the work for F.C.I. of loading and unloading of food grains. A decision was taken by the F.C.I. to C.W.P.No. 1858 of 2008 -2- introduce the Direct Payment System in the Food Storage Depot, Patran with effect from 1.4.1997 by a decision dated 7.9.1997. On the basis of the said decision, 105 workmen were brought under the Direct Payment System according to which they were held entitled to be paid additional wages at the rate of 1890/- per month on the basis of additional minimum guarantee wages. With the introduction of this Direct Payment System with effect from 1.4.1997 by the decision 7.9.1997, the contract with respondent No.2- Dalbir Singh Contractor came to an end and the services of remaining 41 employees were dispensed with and accordingly, the workmen did not work with the F.C.I. thereafter. The workmen on the basis of the said decision introducing the Direct Payment System, filed an application under Rule 25 (2)(V) (a) and (b) of the 1971 Rules claiming therein the same benefit at the rate of Rs.1890/- per month at par with the 105 workmen who had been given the benefit under the Direct Payment System. The Chief Labour Commissioner has held the 41 remaining workmen entitled to the said benefit relying upon Rule 25(2) of the above-mentioned Rules which reads as follows:- “25(2) Every licence granted under sub-rule (1) or renewed under Rule 29 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely- xx xx xx xx (v) (a) in cases where the workmen employed by the contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment, the wage rates, holidays, C.W.P.No. 1858 of 2008 -3- hours of work and other condition of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work: Provided that in the case of any disagreement with regard to the type of work the same shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central).” A perusal of this Rule would clearly show that in cases where the workmen were employed by the Contractor and performed the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment, the wage rates, apart from other conditions of service of the workmen of the Contractor, shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of work. It is not in dispute that the work performed by these 41 workmen was the same and there was no distinguishing factor with regard to their nature of work in comparison to the 105 workmen who had been brought under the Direct Payment System on 6.9.1997 with effect from 1.4.1997. That being the factual position and in the light of Rule 25(2) reproduced herein-above, the workmen have been rightly granted the benefit by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 27.12.2007 (Annexure P-3) The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the liability would be of the Contractor and not of the F.C.I., may be correct as far as his C.W.P.No. 1858 of 2008 -4- assertion with regard to his claim against respondent No.2 is concerned but nevertheless as per provisions contained in Section 21 (4) of the Act, the liability would be of the principal employer to make payment of wages in full or unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the Contractor and thereafter recover the amount so paid from the Contractor either by taking any amount payable by the Contractor either under contract or as debt payable by the Contractor. In view of the above provisions, liberty is very much available with the F.C.I. (petitioner herein) to recover the amount from respondent No.2-the Contractor who had taken the handling and transport contract. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. February 03, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No