http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA, CALCUTTA.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TULSI DAS BAURI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      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 FMAT No. 2098/94.      The undisputed facts are that respondent Nos. 1-91 wear engaged as  contract labour  by  Bhagwat  Prasad  Choudhury, 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 Division Bench  has directed  by the  impugned judgment that the appellant  shall be  liable to  pay the  arrears of  the balance of the amount of the wages.      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 no force in the contention.      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  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 fro  the contractor  either  by deducting from  any amount  payable to  the contractor under any contract  or as  a debt  payable by the contractor. That liability has  been prescribed under sub-section (2) thereof which says  that every  principal employer  shall nominate a representative duly  authorised by  him to be present at the time of disbursement 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.      Thus it  could be  seen that  the principal employer is statutorily responsible  to ensure  payment of  the wages as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

per the  law. In  case the contractor commits default in 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 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 interference.      The appeal is dismissed. No costs.