L. NARASIMBA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, Cement Corporation of India Limited, challenges the Award of the Labour Court, Anantapur, dated 18-6-1990 in a batch of cases filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brief the ID Act ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner runs a cement factory at Yerraguntla in Cuddapah district. As part of its activity, it awarded a labour contract to the 3rd respondent, a labour contractor. The 3rd respondent, in turn, has engaged respondents 4 to 222 (for brief the contract labour ) for doing various kinds of jobs assigned to them. ( 3 ) THE contract labour moved the Labour Court, 1st respondent herein, by filing applications under Section 33c (2) of the ID Act claiming that the Cement Industry Wage Board has prescribed rates of wages to be paid to various categories of employees working in the cement industry and that their contractor, the 3rd respondent herein, and the principal employer, the petitioner herein, were not paying the wages as per the said wage award. They relied upon the provisions of Section 21 (4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 (for brief the CL Act ). According to them, inasmuch as the 3rd respondent failed to pay the wages as per the wage award, the petitioner is under obligation to pay the difference of the wages as required under Section 21 (4) of the CL Act. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed a counter and resisted the plea of the contract labour on several grounds. They disputed the existence of the relationship of the employer and the employee and also the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to entertain the applications. The applicability of the wage award was also denied by the petitioner. Another contention that was raised is that the contract labourers are not entitled to enforce their rights against the principal employer, by initiating proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act. ( 5 ) THE 1st respondent discussed all the aspects of the matter at length. During the course of the evidence, it emerged that the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner admitted the existence of the wage award providing for rates of wages in the cement industry and also the fact that the contract labourers were engaged in their industry. During the course of the evidence, it emerged that the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner admitted the existence of the wage award providing for rates of wages in the cement industry and also the fact that the contract labourers were engaged in their industry. Discussion as to whether the contract labour should be treated as part of the establishment and whether they are entitled for the same wages as are paid to the regular employees was also undertaken. On being satisfied that the contract labour were not paid the wages at the rates stipulated in the wage award, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order in exercise of its powers under Section 21 (4) of the Contract Labour Act and directed the petitioner to pay the difference of wages. ( 6 ) SRI P. Nageswar Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act can be instituted only by a Workman of an Industry and since the contract labour do not come within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the ID Act, the 1st respondent did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the applications at all. On merits also, he submits that the contract labour failed to establish the factum of their having been engaged during the disputed period. It is stated that all the contract labour cannot be said to have been engaged for the entire period uninterruptedly and the grant of relief without verification of these facts was improper. He further claims that the dispute as to the payment of wages between the management and the workers were settled for some period and the wage award issued by the 1st respondent covered that period also. He relied upon several judgments in support of his contentions. ( 7 ) SRI G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the contract labour, on the other hand, submits that once the wage award provided for payment of wages at a particulate rate, it was not open either to the petitioner or the 3rd respondent to extract the work by paying the wages at a lower rate. ( 7 ) SRI G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the contract labour, on the other hand, submits that once the wage award provided for payment of wages at a particulate rate, it was not open either to the petitioner or the 3rd respondent to extract the work by paying the wages at a lower rate. He submits that there is nothing in the ID Act or the CL Act, which prohibits the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal from entertaining the application under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act for enforcement or implementation of the wage award in exercise of powers conferred under Section 21 (4) of the CL Act. It is also submitted by him that the fact that the contract labour have worked in the petitioner factory was established and it was only on being satisfied about that fact that the 1st respondent has granted the relief. The learned counsel relies upon the decisions of the various Courts in support of his contentions. ( 8 ) AS pointed earlier, the petitioner awarded the contract of supplying labourers to undertake certain categories of works in the petitioner-factory to the labour contractor, the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent supplied the contract labour in accordance with the contract with the petitioner. This contract obviously is governed by the provisions of the Contract Labour Act. ( 9 ) THOUGH there was some hesitation on the part of the petitioner to recognise the existence of the wage award, during the course of evidence in the matter, it was elicited through the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner herein that there is a wage award, which is marked as Ex. W1 and that the same stipulates the rates of wages for various categories of works including those which are required to be done by the contract labour. Once that is so, the 3rd respondent was under obligation to pay the wages according to the stipulated rates. In a way, the petitioner is deemed to have taken rates into account while awarding the labour contract to the 3rd respondent. Once that is so, the 3rd respondent was under obligation to pay the wages according to the stipulated rates. In a way, the petitioner is deemed to have taken rates into account while awarding the labour contract to the 3rd respondent. ( 10 ) THE Contract Labour Act came to be enacted with a view to regulate the engagement of the contract labour by various establishments, define the mutual rights and obligations of the principal employer, labour contractor and the contract labour, with special emphasis on protection of the interest of the labour supplied by the labour contractor. The reason is that there does not exist any privity of contract or relationship of employer and employee between the principal employer, on one hand, and the labour supplied by the labour contractor, on the other. The remuneration for the work done by the contract labour for the benefit of the principal employer is paid to the labour contractor. Consequently, the contract labour has to depend upon the mercy of the labour contractor to receive the wages for the work done by them. In this set of facts, the contract labour cannot raise any industrial dispute with the principal employer and the labour contractor is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts for the purpose of raising industrial disputes. It is with a view to protect the contract labour from their vulnerability to undue exploitation, that the Parliament has enacted Section 21 of the CL Act, which reads as under:"21. Responsibility for payment of wages,-- (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. (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. " ( 11 ) A reading of Section 21 of CL Act clearly demonstrates as to how the labour contractor, on one hand, and the principal employer, on the other, has been held responsible to pay the stipulated wages to the contract labour. Their responsibility is joint and several, depending on the circumstances. The right to receive the wages can be enforced against the labour contractor or the principal employer. Exhaustion of the remedy against one would relieve the other. ( 12 ) THE complaint of the contract labour was that they were not paid the wages as per the wage award. The petitioner did not seriously dispute this fact. An attempt was made to throw the blame upon the 3rd respondent, the labour contractor. Even if their attempt is successful, they cannot be relieved them of the obligations imposed upon them under Section 21 (4) of the CL Act. If they discharge their liability under Section 21 (4) of the CL Act, it would enable them to deduct or recover the corresponding amounts from the 3rd respondent. ( 13 ) ONE of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the contract labour do not come within the definition of workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act, they were not entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the said Act. Technically, this argument may appear to be correct. However, it needs to be observed that there is nothing in the ID Act, which prohibits the enforcement of rights to receive the wages under an award by instituting proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act. Technically, this argument may appear to be correct. However, it needs to be observed that there is nothing in the ID Act, which prohibits the enforcement of rights to receive the wages under an award by instituting proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act. Having regard to the purpose, which is sought to be served by prescribing the procedure under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act, it is rather difficult to restrict its application and defeat the rights which the contract labour is entitled to. The definition of workman under Section 2 (s) may have several connotations and different purposes to be served. Once it is established that certain individuals have worked in an Industry and there is a statutory award prescribing the rates of wages for the type of work executed by such persons, the mere fact that the persons so engaged do not come within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the ID Act, does not entitle the Industry to refuse to implement the award in respect of the workers, having extracted the work from them. To put it conversely, the persons so engaged cannot be left without remedy and provisions of Section 33-C (2) cannot be kept out of their reach. In this context, it is to be noticed that Section 21 of the CL Act, which deals with the concept of contract labour, refers to the labours that were engaged as workers. Under Section 21, the worker and the contract labour are almost used interchangeably. ( 14 ) IT is not a case where the contract labours have put forward the plea that they should be treated as workmen of the principal employer. The right, which they sought to enforce, was independent of any relationship of employer and employee between them. Therefore, the contention that the remedy under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act is not available to the contract labour is not acceptable. ( 15 ) NOW remains the question as to whether the Labour Court was justified in passing the award directing the petitioner to pay the difference of wages. It is true that the contract labour was able to establish before the Labour Court that there existed a wage award and they were not paid the wages according to the same. ( 15 ) NOW remains the question as to whether the Labour Court was justified in passing the award directing the petitioner to pay the difference of wages. It is true that the contract labour was able to establish before the Labour Court that there existed a wage award and they were not paid the wages according to the same. Payment of wages at the rates stipulated under the wage award was the obligation of the 3rd respondent as well as the petitioner. Inasmuch as the contract labour were not under the direct employment of the petitioner, it was not in a position to furnish the relevant particulars as to whether all the contract labour, who are respondents 4 to 222 herein, have worked in their factory, and if worked, for how many days, etc. These particulars were required to be furnished either by the contract labour by themselves of by the 3rd respondent. The evidence before the Labour Court on this aspect was either insufficient or was not authenticated. The Labour Court ought to have endeavoured to undertake an enquiry into this question by itself or to get it enquired through a competent agency. Ensuring that the petitioners before the Labour Court get only what they deserve, was as important as ensuring that they should not be deprived of their rights. While denial of relief to the workers cause hardships to them, indiscriminate grant of relief that too, in respect of hundreds of employees, would certainly shatter the viability of an Industry. It is for this reason that proper care needs to be taken for granting the relief. Hence, this Court is of the view that there should be a proper verification by a competent authority to verify as to the exact entitlement of the workers. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, the award of the Labour Court, in so far as it holds the petitioner responsible to pay the wages to the contract labour in accordance with the wage award, is upheld. So far as the entitlement of each of the contract labour that figured as petitioners before the Labour Court is concerned, it is directed that the contract labour i. e. , respondents 4 to 222 herein, shall submit their necessary claims supported by particulars as to number of working days, etc. So far as the entitlement of each of the contract labour that figured as petitioners before the Labour Court is concerned, it is directed that the contract labour i. e. , respondents 4 to 222 herein, shall submit their necessary claims supported by particulars as to number of working days, etc. , to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour of the concerned area, within one month from the date of this order. On receipt of such claims, the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Labour shall pass appropriate orders deciding as to how many of the contract labour i. e. , respondents 4 to 222 herein, worked in the factory of the petitioner during the relevant point of time, the nature of job undertaken by them and the number of days they have worked. On the basis of this finding, their entitlement to receive the wages shall also be decided. On such finding being recorded, the petitioner shall pay the difference of wages within three months from the date of the order to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour is directed to endeavour to complete this exercise, as early as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of the claims by the contract labour. ( 17 ) THE writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.