Admitted. 1. Petitioners submit that they came to be engaged as labourers by respondent™s No. 7 who had undertaken to execute civil works for the benefit of respondent™s No. 1 to 6. It is submitted that respondents No. 7 namely Himalayan Construction Company, was entrusted with the work of cutting and covering of civil works of Tunnel No. 7 and 8 Embankments in approaches were also to be constructed. Some work regarding construction of bridges from 15.355 Kms to 18.050 Kms, was also to be done on Jammu Udhampur Rail Link Project. This work is said to have been allotted to respondent No. 7 on 26th Sept., 94. The petitioners who as indicated above, were engaged as labourers have not been paid their wages. They have approached this court seeking a direction that respondent-Union of India should be directed to pay them the wages out of the money which is payable to respondent NO. 7. It is also submitted that respondents are under a statutory obligation in their capacity as principal employer to see that the payment of wages which was supposed to be made in favour of the petitioners be made to them. The total amount which is stated to be payable to the petitioners is said to be Rs. 11,17,900. This amount is due to the petitioners as the wages from 1st March 97 to 27th May 97. Another amount of Rs. 4,12,500/- is also said to be due for the month of June, July and August, 97. Thus, the case as projected by the petitioners is: i) That respondent™s No. 1 to 6 had allotted some civil works in favour of respondent No. 7 which was in connection with the project of Jammu-Udhampur Rail Link; ii) That they were engaged as labourers by respondent No. 7; iii) That respondent No. 1 to 6 being the .principal employers are responsible for making the payment in their favour in connection with the wages due to them. For this, reliance is being placed on Sections 20 and 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The Union of India and other official respondents have filed objections. It is submitted that the present petition involves disputed question of facts and these cannot be made the subject matter of adjudication in this petition. 2. The Union of India and other official respondents have filed objections. It is submitted that the present petition involves disputed question of facts and these cannot be made the subject matter of adjudication in this petition. It is further submitted that the liability, if any, can be restricted to 123 labourers only. It is submitted that the licence was issued in favour of respondent No. 7 in terms of the aforementioned Act and this licence makes mention of 123 employees only. Beyond that, it is submitted that the official respondents are not supposed to make any payment. It is submitted that this petition has been filed at the instance of respondent No. 7. This respondent, as per the official respondents has deliberately verified the fictitious muster rolls, with a motive to create liability against the official respondents. On merits, it is not disputed that licence No. 46 (L-31) was issued on 19th January, 1995. This licence speaks of 123 labourers w.e.f. 6th September, 1996. It is accordingly submitted that the claim of 162 labourers cannot be made subject matter of challenge in this petition. In para 5 of the objections, it is specifically stated that the liability, if any, cannot be beyond 123 labourers. It is stated as under: ..It is once again submitted that if at all any payment is due, the liability being principal employer of the respondents is restricted to 123 labourers in all as per licence issued for the Contract labourers by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)...� 3. It is further submitted by the official respondents that after the contract with respondent No. 7 was brought to an end, no liability could be fastened on the official respondents. The fact that respondent No. 7 had preferred a writ petition bearing No. 419/97 against the termination of contract, is also adverted to in para 11 of the objections. It is submitted that this petition was dismissed on 24th July, 1997. A Letters Patent Appeal was also preferred. This was also dismissed. It is further submitted that the muster rolls which have been relied upon by the petitioners are fictitious. It is also stated that the official respondents have nothing to pay to respondent No. 7 and, as a matter of fact, they have to recover a sum of Rs. 2 Crores from respondent No. 7. This was also dismissed. It is further submitted that the muster rolls which have been relied upon by the petitioners are fictitious. It is also stated that the official respondents have nothing to pay to respondent No. 7 and, as a matter of fact, they have to recover a sum of Rs. 2 Crores from respondent No. 7. With regard to the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, it is submitted that the principal employer is responsible to make payment of wages to bonafide contract labourers. If somebody has been employed unathorisedly, then the official respondents, it is submitted cannot be called upon to meet the liability. 4. Respondent No. 7 has also filed the reply. The submissions made in paragraphs 1 to 24 have been admitted. The reply given to various paragraphs is either "admitted as correct" or it has been mentioned as "not denied". In reply to para 26, it is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to get the wages from the principal employer. It is submitted that the Union of India has to pay almost 50 lacs to this respondent. 5. From the perusal of the pleadings, the undisputed facts are: i) That the respondent No. 7 was issued a licence for engaging labour on contract, ii) That this contract licence makes mention of the engagement of 123 labourers. To this extent, the Union of India and its functionaries do not raise any dispute, iii) That as per Union of India, the contract with respondent No. 7 was brought to an end, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any emoluments from them after the period the contract was brought to an end. iv) That the muster rolls which have been prepared are fictitious, v) That the petition has been filed malafide. This as per the Union of India has been filed at the instance of respondent No. 7 who wants to get the payment indirectly. vi) That it is the Union of India and its functionaries who have to recover a sum of Rs. 2 Crores from respondent No. 7 and nothing is payable to respondent No. 7. vii) That as per respondent No. 7, he is to get an amount of Rs. 50 lacs from the official respondents. 6. vi) That it is the Union of India and its functionaries who have to recover a sum of Rs. 2 Crores from respondent No. 7 and nothing is payable to respondent No. 7. vii) That as per respondent No. 7, he is to get an amount of Rs. 50 lacs from the official respondents. 6. The question as to whether the Union of India is under any obligation to make the payments in its capacity as principal employer be examined at the first stage. It is Sections 20 and 21 of the Act which are relevant and are being reproduced below: 20. (1) If any amenity required to be provided under section 16, section 17, section 18 or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed in an establishment is not provided by the contract within the time prescribed therefore, such amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within such time as maybe prescribed. (2) All expenses incurred by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be recovered by the principal employer from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor." Section 21: (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. (2) 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. (3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorised representative of the principal employer. (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 from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor.� 7. So far as the Sections as noticed above are concerned, there can be no dispute that a contractor is responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as a contract labour. This is so provided in section 21(1) of the Act. Sub Section 2 of Section 21 makes it obligatory on the principal employer to nominate a representative duly authorised by it to remain present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. Similarly, sub section 4 of this Section provides that in case the contractor fails to make payment to the contract labour or makes short payment, then it shall be the duty of the principal employer to make such payment and to deduct the amount so paid from the contractor. 8. In l990 Lab IC(NOC) 56,Purnea Zila Mazdoor Union Vs. State of Bihar the view expressed was that the State of Bihar being the principal employer in terms of provisions of the Act of 1970, was liable to make payments to the workmen engaged by the contractor for the construction of an irrigational project. It was observed that when the Sate itself gives employment or is the principal employer, it can under no circumstances shrik its liability. The Supreme Court in the case reported as (1997) 5 SCC 51, Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Calcutta vs. Tulsi Das Bauri and others, has commented upon Section 21 of the Act. What is said in paragraph 5 and 6 of the judgment is being reproduced below: 5. 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 from 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. 6: Thus it could be seen that the principal employer is statutorily responsible to ensure payment of the wages as per the law. In case the contractor commits default in the payment of 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." 9. In the above case, the term wages was also interpreted and it was observed that this term would include the balance of wages or arrears thereof. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Labour, (1996) 10 SCC 599. Therefore, as an abstract proposition of law, the respondent Union of India is responsible for making payment to the contract labours and recover the amount from the contractor. This can be recovered from the amount which is payable to the contractor. Therefore, to this extent, the petitioners are right in their submission. The question, however, arises as to whether the petitioners were, infact, employed and as to whether this petition has been sponsored by respondent No. 7? A specific stand has been taken by Union of India and its functionaries that this litigation has been sponsored by respondent NO.7. It is further stated that it is the respondent No. 7 who is to pay a sum of Rs. 2 Crores to the Union of India. The respondent No.7 on the other hand too has taken a stand that he is to get an amount of Rs. 50.00 lacs from respondents No.1 to 6. This is a disputed question of fact and it can obviously be not gone into in this petition. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the Assistant Labour Commissioner, 420-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, who was at some stage dealing with the matter, would go into this question. 50.00 lacs from respondents No.1 to 6. This is a disputed question of fact and it can obviously be not gone into in this petition. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the Assistant Labour Commissioner, 420-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, who was at some stage dealing with the matter, would go into this question. In case, there is failure on his part to reach a conclusion, then the matter would be referred to the appropriate Government for referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. This is because the present litigation involves disputed questions of fact i.e. as to how many workers were engaged and for what period. The plea taken by the Union of India that it has to recover an amount of Rs.2 Crores from respondent No.7 can be taken by it before the authority to whom this matter has been sent. The respondent No. 7 would also be at liberty to put forth its claim before the concerned authority. In case, it is found that the official respondents have to pay some amount to the private respondent No.7, then a direction can be given by the concerned authority to make payment to the contract labours out of the amount to be paid to respondent No.7. Let the matter be decided finally within a period of three months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, 420-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, by either of the parties. In case, the Assistant Labour Commissioner records a finding to the effect that the matter is required to be referred to the Labour Court or to the Industrial Tribunal in terms of Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, then the appropriate communication would be sent to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government would make a reference of the dispute in terms of Section 10 of the above said Act within a period of two months, the reference is received by it from the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Disposed of accordingly.