K. D. SHAHI, J. Heard. 2. The petition has been filed by M/s Hindalco Industries Limited, Renukoot, district Sonebhadra for quashing the complaint filed by respondent No. 2, Deputy Labour Commissioner, Pipri district Sonebhadra before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonebhadra for non-payment of bonus to their employees. 3. Notices were issued to respondent No. 3, M/s. Prayag Construction Company, but despite service of notice no counter-affidavit has been filed. 4. The brief facts of the case are that complaints were filed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner against M/s. Prayag Construction Company and M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as petitioner-company) with the allega tions that under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 both the accused were liable to pay bonus to their employees for the year 1989-90 latest by 31st March, 1990, but they did not pay bonus to their employees, hence they are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. 5. According to the own allegation of the complainant, M/s. Prayag Construc tion Company was the employer and the petitioner-company was the main employer. The factual position is that petitioner- company was getting its work carried on by M/s. Prayag Construction Company. Thus, the relationship of employer and employee was between M/s. Prayag Construction Company and the employers, who have claimed bonus for the year 1989-90. 6. It was argued that there was noth ing like main employer and the contractual obligation was to be performed by the employer M/s. Prayag Construction Com pany alone. There was no legal, contrac tual or even moral liability of the petitioner-company to pay bonus as en visaged under the complaint. 7. There is substance in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-company. Since M/s. Prayag Construction Company had employed workmen to carry on the coutractual work of petitioner-company, therefore the con struction company is liable to pay bonus to its employees. The petitioner-company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay bonus to the employees by M/s Prayag Construction Company. It is well settled that the liability to pay bonus is that of the employer and none else. In the cir cumstances, the complaint as against M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, the petition is al lowed. It is well settled that the liability to pay bonus is that of the employer and none else. In the cir cumstances, the complaint as against M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, the petition is al lowed. The complaint (Annexure-1 to the petition) so far as it relates to the petitioner M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited is hereby quashed. The stay order dated 4-11-1994 is hereby vacated. Inform the Magistrate concerned Petition allowed. .