On or about 11th December, 1980, the appellant entered into an agreement with respondent No.
The Division Bench of the High Court decided to examine the legality of the agreement dated 11th December, 1980 entered into between the appellant and the 4th respondent.
600 as remuneration for the supply of Security Guards, Shift In charge and Security Sergeants respectively.
The Commissioner of Labour accordingly by an order dated 13th of August, 1984, held that the appellant was the principal employer and the respondent No, 4 was the companytractor who had supplied companytract labour under the said act.
1196 of 1988.
4, however, is turn, paid to the Security Guards Rs.
JUDGEMENT 1996 SCR 5 SUPP 447 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MRS.
12963 of 1984 challenging the order of the Commissioner of Labour, A learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 6th of July, 1988 dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Labour, Aggrieved by this order, respondent No.
The agreement .specifies that the appellant would pay to respondent No, 4 monthly Amounts at the rate of Rs,400,Rs.
the Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh .whose decision shall be final.
360.13 instead of Rs.
359.46 instead.
4 M s. Investigation and Security Services India Pvt.
The appellant had registered itself as an employer under Section 7 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970, Respondent No.
He further held that the Security Guards supplied by the 4th respondent to the establishment of the appellant were performing the same kind of work as that performed by the Security Guards engaged by the appellant itself.
It further gave a direction to the appellant to pay to the companytract labour the difference between the wages paid by the companytractor and the wages which were paid by the appellant to its own security staff The Division Bench further gave a direction that in case the companytractor failed to pay the amounts to the companytract labour companycerned, the appellant shall pay the same to the companytract labour employed by it and may thereafter recover the amount so paid from the 4th respondent either by deduction from any amount payable by the appellant to the 4th respondent under any, companytract or may recover the same as a debt payable by the 4th respondent to the appellant.
500 and to the Security Sergeants Rs.
600 thus retaining Rs.
On 19th of May, 1983, he filed a companyplaint before the Commissioner of Labour, Under the proviso to Rule 25 v a of the Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Rules, 1971, in the case of any disagreement with regard to the type of work, the same is required to be decided by.
The appellant has accordingly paid to respondent No.
4 the said amounts by way of monthly remuneration for each of the categories of workmen supplied by the 4th respondent, Respondent No.
He found that there was a difference between the wages paid by .the appellant to its own watch and ward staff and the companytract labour supplied by the 4th respondent who were doing similar work.
4 preferred ah appeal before the High Court being Appeal No.
Ltd., is a Private Limited Company Which carries on the business of providing security services through companytract labour for various companypanies and individuals ,It maintains officers and workmen to render, inter alia, security services to various establishments and individuals.
500 and Rs.
4 by which respondent No, 4 agreed to supply to the appellant, i Security Guards ii Shift in charge and, iii Security Sergeants on the terms and companyditions specified in that agreement.
82.23 in respect of Security Guards, Rs, 139.87 in respect of Shift Incharge or Head Guards and Rs 2405.54 in respect of Security Sergeants.
of Rs.
The 4 h respondent thereupon filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, being writ .Petition No.
4, at all material times, possessed a licenee as a companytractor under Section 12 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970, read with Andhra Pradesh Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Roles, 1971.
Being aggrieved by these directions, the appellant has companye by way of the present appeal.
317.77 instead of Rs, 400 to the shift In charge Rs.
At all times material to this appeal, the appellant had under taken to carry out civil engineering work for the 5th respondent, Vishak hapatnarii Steel Plant under various companytracts.
Respondent No.
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour companynected with the enforcement of provisions of the said Act visited the site of the appellant where the companytract labour .supplied by the 4th respondent was employed.
SUJATA V. MANQHAR, J. Special leave granted.
The appellant, Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd., is a Government companypany within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, It is engaged in the work of companystruction of various types in India and abroad.
