2026:AHC:200939 Reserved : 14/09/2026 Delivered : 24/09/2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 14441 of 2026 M/s Amph Fashion Pvt. Ltd. …..Petitioner(s) Versus Authority Under UP Industrial Peace and 2 others …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Diksha Kesarwani, Umesh Chandra Kesarwani Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shekhar Srivastava Along With :- Writ C No. 14444 of 2026 M/s Amph Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Versus Authority Under UP Industrial Peace Timely Payment of Wages Act and 2 others Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. The Trade Union Center of India filed an application before Additional Labour Court, NOIDA through its General Secretary that workmen mentioned in annexed list therewith were appointed on contract by Contractor M/s B.S. Enterprises (respondent-4) and were working for petitioner M/s AMPH Fashion Pvt. Ltd., however, they were not paid due wages and were not issued appointment letters, leave card, ESIC card, PF, etc. No bonus or holidays were provided and despite they were forced to work overtime, no wages was paid for same. 2 WRIC No. - 14441 of 2026 2. It was further alleged that when they have demanded due wages from their Contractor, it was informed that as soon as amount would pay by principal employer i.e. petitioner, their dues be paid and accordingly, they prayed that proceedings be initiated against petitioner, the principal- employer under provisions of U.P. Industrial Peace (Timely Payment of Wages) Act, 1978 (for short “Act of 1978”). 3. The Prescribed Authority initiated proceedings and Contractor was made party therein though at later stage, however, despite notice, Contractor remained absent and only petitioner filed reply that they have provided job work to Contractor and Contractor assigned job work to workmen and according to bill raised, payment was made to Contractor. Some cheques paid were also placed on record. 4. In aforesaid circumstances, despite Contractor did not appear and no reply was filed, the impugned order was passed on 19.01.2026 that amount mentioned in application be paid to workmen. The Prescribed Authority placed reliance upon Section 21 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short “Act of 1970”) that in case Contractor is failed to make payment of wages within prescribed period, then the principal employer shall be responsible for payment of wages and it can be recovered from Contractor later on. Aforesaid order is impugned in this writ petition. 5. In present case, notice was issued to respondent-4 i.e. Contractor in both writ petitions, however, despite service, no one has entered appearance on its behalf. 6. Sri U.C. Kesarwani, learned counsel for petitioner in both writ petitions has submitted that each and every bill raised by Contractor was paid and it was duty of Contractor to pay wages in terms of contract between workmen and Contractor and if said amount was not paid to workmen, responsibility would be upon the Contractor and not upon the petitioner. 3 WRIC No. - 14441 of 2026 7. Learned counsel has further submitted that above referred provisions of Act of 1970 would come into play only when Contractor was able to show that despite bills were raised, amount was not paid, however, in present case, stand of Contractor was not before Authorities concerned or before this Court where petitioner has placed on record documents that payment was not made towards all bills raised by Contractor. 8. Per contra, Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent-Trade Union has submitted that workmen were not paid their due wages, therefore, they moved an application and it was allowed. By the impugned order, a liberty was granted to principal-employer/ petitioner to recover amount from Contractor. It was dispute between Contractor and principal-employer and workmen may not be put in adverse position. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of Posysha Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Collector, 1998 (1) UPLBEC 391. 9. I have considered submissions advanced by rival parties and material placed on record. 10. A fact which is not absolutely disputed that all workmen were contractual appointees and their condition of service was governed in terms of contract between workmen and respondent-4, however, copy of said contract was neither placed before Authority concerned nor before this Court. 11. The petitioner has come up with a specific case that as and when demand was raised by Contractor for payment of wages to the workmen, it was duly honoured and amount was paid. A reference was given to amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid towards last demand. 12. In view of above, on basis of record, it cannot be held that principal-employer i.e. petitioner was on default. The Contractor has not appeared despite service, therefore, a claim of workmen that they were 4 WRIC No. - 14441 of 2026 not paid due wages was not verified. The Authority concerned has also not called the documents to verify whether due wages were paid for said period to workmen or not. 13. Even in present proceedings, there is no supporting document on record placed by workmen to show that they were not paid due wages as per their respective contract. 14. The Prescribed Authority has imposed entire responsibility upon principal-employer i.e. petitioner in terms of Section 21 of Act of 1970 that amount paid by petitioner can be recovered from Contractor, however, Court is of the view that petitioner can not be prejudiced twice i.e. despite they have paid entire amount to Contractor, they have to pay again. 15. In order to issue a direction to petitioner to pay wages, there must be a clear finding that even after payment from petitioner to Contractor, Contractor has still failed to pay due wages to workmen but there is no consideration in the impugned order in this regard. 16. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for respondents will also not be helpful to them in present case. Otherwise also, the Authority concerned has not passed any order against Contractor. 17. In aforesaid circumstances, Court finds that in absence of Contractor before Prescribed Authority to impose entire burden on petitioner would not be justified. Provisions of Act of 1970 would not be applicable in given set of circumstances, specifically relevant documents were not placed by workmen that demand were genuine. 18. In view of above, Contractor who was the real defaulter is being declared free. Accordingly, impugned order dated 19.01.2026 is set aside and matter is remitted back to concerned Authority to pass a fresh order and will take coercive measures to ensure presence of Contractor and liability will be fastened on petitioner only when workmen and 5 WRIC No. - 14441 of 2026 Contractor are able to show that demand raised by Contractor was not fulfilled either entirely or partially. 20. Both writ petitions are disposed of with above observations. (SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.) September 24, 2026 <Nirmal> Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad