2026:JHHC:2534 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 6845 of 2023 --------- Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, Aged about 48 years, S/o: Baijnath Agarwal, Resident of: Vill- Matigada, Shwaspur, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-8321006, P.O.: Matigada, P.S.: Sidhgora, District: East Singhbhum, State Jharkhand-825301. ....Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Geology and Mines at Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, PO& PS: Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Labour Enforcement officer (Central), Chaibasa 3rd Floor, Balaji Apartment, Mahulsai Rd, Nindhi, Chaibasa P.O- Chaibasa, P.S Chaibasa, Jharkhand. 3. Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central) Dhanbad, Shram Bhawan, Murli magar, New Colony, Dhanbad, Jharkhand at P.O Jagjivan nagar, P.S- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad, P.I.n- 826003. 4. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Chaibasa at Flat No.3 A, Balaji Apartment, 3rd Floor, Above Syndicate Bank, At- Nimdih, Chaibasa, P.O-Chaibasa, P.S-Nimdih, Dist: Singhbhum (West), State: Jharkhand-833201. 5. The Deputy General Manager, Uranium Corporation of India Limited, Jaduguda, at PO & PS: Jaduguda Mines, Dist.: Singhbhum (East), State: Jharkhand-832102. ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate For the Resp.-UOI : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Sr.S.C. For the Resp.-State : Mr. J.F. Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. N.A. Toppo, A.C. to G.A.-V --------- 07/Dated:-29.01.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16/17.08.2023, whereby the authority had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,84,636/- which includes the difference amount of wages of Rs.46,159/- and compensation of Rs.1,38,477/-. 2026:JHHC:2534 2 3. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he is a contractor and the principal employer has not given the required amount / agreed amount to the contractor which led to less payment of wages to the workers. He further tries to impress this Court by drawing attention towards Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970 and submits that it is the principal employer who is responsible for wages. 4. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may kindly give liberty to take appropriate action against the principal employer as the principal employer has not given required amount which led to less payment of wages to the workers. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 opposes such submission and draws attention of this Court towards paras 4, 5, 6 of the impugned order (Annexure-4) wherein this issue has been discussed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner has failed to make out any case and further the stand of the petitioner that he being a contractor and the principal employer has not given him required money is misplaced and misconceived and cannot be accepted in view of the categorical finding given by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad in its order which is impugned herein; as such, I don’t find any error in the impugned order. For brevity, para 7 and 8 of the order is extracted hereinbelow: 2026:JHHC:2534 3 “7. On going through the statement of workers recorded during inspection on 28.08.2018 as mentioned in the inspection report No. 26(43)/2018-LEO/CHI dated 31.08.2018 issued to Opponent, statement of workers and hearing the Applicant this Authority finds that the Opponent has not paid statutory minimum wages to his workers as due under Notification No. SO.188(E) dated 19.01.2017 of Government of india. The wages paid to the workers are less than the rate of wages notified under the Act. Even after issuing aforesaid Inspection Report-cum-show cause Notice to the Opponent to rectify the irregularities, the Opponent failed to pay difference of wages to the workers. The action of Opponent amounts to deprivation of workers of their statutory dues. As per sec-12 of MW Act, 1948, the employer is required to pay minimum wage to employee which the Opponent has failed to do. The Opponent was given sufficient opportunities to produce relevant documents/records regarding payment of wages made to the workers and produce the workers for their evidence for verification of actual payment made to the workers. But the Opponent only filed copy of Wage Register and Attendance Register which was not duly certified by the representative of the Principal Employer. Unless the payment of wages to the workers is witnessed by the authorized representative of the Principal Employer, it cannot be construed that the wages as shown in the wage register has actually been paid to the workers. Also without verification from the workers, the wage register submitted by the opponent cannot be treated as authentic. The Opponent also not submitted any written statement in this case except oral arguments/submissions. The argument the Opponent that they have paid the same amount as received from the Principal Employer is not valid and justified since certified copy of the Wage Register in Form-B has not been submitted by the Opponent. The workers were engaged by the Opponent as 'Employer' and they were working under his control and supervision. The argument of the Opponent that he has paid the wages to the workers as received from the Principal Employer cannot be accepted because the Opponent has engaged the concerned workers and he is the 'Employer' of the workers concerned under the definition of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As per Section 2(e) of the Act. “employer” means any person who employs, whether directly or through another person, or whether on behalf of himself or any other person, one or more employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which minimum rates of wages have been fixed under this Act. The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in several cases and recently vide order dated 6th February, 2015 in case of B.L. Rana vs. State of Jharkhand has given its verdict that this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 1383 of 2003 and vide order dated 22.09.2004 it was held there is no concept of principal employer as it was defined under section 2(e) of the Minimum Wages Act. In view of the averments made above and the judgment of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, the Principal Employer cannot be made liable for payment of minimum wages to the workers engaged by the Opponent (contractor). The Opponent cannot escape himself from the responsibility of payment of minimum wages to the workers as fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In view of the above, the Opponent is liable to pay difference of wages to the concerned workers as claimed by the Applicant being the “employer” of the concerned employees involved to this claim application. 8. Further, as far as the payment of compensation is concerned, the objective of minimum wage legislation is to protect the workers from exploitation by providing them statutory rate of wages which are essential for the survival of labour. In this claim case, the workers were engaged in Labour supply for electrical maintenance Job in Turamdih of M/s UCIL through the Opponent and Sec-20(3)(i) of the Act prescribes payment of difference wages with payment of compensation not exceeding ten times. In consideration of the nature of employment, the industry where employed, right of workers to compensation, failure on the part of Opponent to pay the difference of wages in time and his intention shown not to pay the difference of wages to the concerned. workers, this Authority is of the view that the Opponent is liable to pay 03 (three) times of difference of wages as compensation to the workers, involved in the claim application, for not paying the minimum wages in time which will be just and proper. The details of difference of wages and compensation are furnished below:- 2026:JHHC:2534 4 Sl. No. Name of Workers Diff. of Wage Amount (Rs.) Compensatio n Amount (Rs.) Total Amount (Rs.) 1 Maheshwar Jena 2,551.00 7,653.00 10,204.00 2 AfrojAlam 3,841.00 11,523.00 15,364.00 3 Niranjan Mahato 2,546.00 7,638.00 10,184.00 4 Sushil Sirka 1,995.00 5,985.00 7,980.00 5 Nimai Mardi 3,620.00 10,860.00 14,480.00 6 Madhu Karmakar 2,739.00 8,217.00 10,956.00 7 Ganesh Ch. Sardar 1,770.00 5,310.00 7080.00 8 Ram Prasad Kaibarta 472.00 1,416.00 1,888.00 9 Gafur Sardar 177.00 531.00 708.00 10 Ranjit Mahto 1,587.00 4,761.00 6348.00 11 Prem Ray 4,264.00 12,792.00 17,056.00 12 Muni Soren 5,980.00 17,940.00 23,920.00 13 Munna Hembram 7,887.00 23,661.00 31,548.00 14 Raghunath Tudu 4,982.00 14,946.00 19,928.00 15 Sunaram Soren 1,012.00 3,036.00 4,048.00 16 Ramrai Baskey 736.00 2,208.00 2,944.00 Total 46,159.00 1,38,477.00 1,84,636.00 ” 7. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to this petitioner and accordingly the instant writ application stands rejected. 8. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) JANUARY 29, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 06.02.2026