JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri G.D. Mishra for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Chauhan appears for respondent workmen Nos. 4 to 59. 2. The petitioner is a cooperative society engaged in the business of purchasing, pausturising, packing and selling milk and milk products in the trade name of ‘Parag’ in District Hathras. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to set aside an order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Minimum of Wages Act, 1948/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aligarh, by which he has awarded Rs.1,86,696/- as the difference between minimum wages and the wages paid to the 56 workmen engaged by the petitioner as labour, paiker, mali, lab assistant, electrician, refrication, plan operator, sweeper, clerk and boiler attendant etc. and Rs. 56,000/- as penalty at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per workman. 3. The 56 workmen made a complaint to the Prescribed Authority that they were engaged through Shri Jai Mangal and Shri Roshan Singh, contractors to work in the dairy run by the petitioner. They claimed the difference of minimum wages and wages paid to them for the period from August 2005 to January 2006 and ten times compensation for defaults made under the Act of 1948. 4. The petitioner took a defence that the workmen were engaged through licenced contractors under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the Act of 1970) and that the contractors were required to pay the minimum wages. The workmen were paid the minimum wages by the contractors. One Shri Dalveer Singh, contractor was not made as party to the proceedings. Shri Roshan Singh, contractor had engaged some of the workmen, who were paid Rs. 90/- per day. Shri Banwari Lal was paid Rs. 95/- per day. The workmen from serial Nos. 47 to 49 engaged by Shri Shanker Lal were also paid Rs. 90/- per day. The workmen at serial Nos. 10, 12, 13, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 44 and 55 were not engaged by the opposite party No. 3 nor had worked at the dairy during the relevant period. 5. The Prescribed Authority found that the contracts was not proved by the petitioner. Shri Jai Mangal and Shri Roshan Singh, contractors were engaged for engaging the contract labour on 2.6.2004 and 26.5.2004, photocopies of which were produced. The petitioner however did not ensure that the contractors paid minimum wages to the workmen. 5. The Prescribed Authority found that the contracts was not proved by the petitioner. Shri Jai Mangal and Shri Roshan Singh, contractors were engaged for engaging the contract labour on 2.6.2004 and 26.5.2004, photocopies of which were produced. The petitioner however did not ensure that the contractors paid minimum wages to the workmen. The Prescribed Authority awarded the difference of wages of Rs. 1,86,696/- and a sum of Rs. 1000/- as penalty to each workman quantified at Rs. 56,000/- and gave directions to the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,42,696/- by bank draft to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aligarh. 6. Shri G.D. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dairy farming is not a scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary Padippu K.S. Sangam Ltd. v. C. Varghese, 2007 (5) SRJ 238, in support of his submission. Shri G.D. Misra would further submit that the business run by the cooperative society is not a dairy business as the milk is collected, pausterised, packed and sold. The petitioner-society do not rare cows or buffalows. The milk is purchased from the dairy farmers, who sell the milk to the petitioner. It is submitted that all the documents were produced on 30.10.2007 giving the names of the contractors and their licences and that the contractors had paid the minimum wages to the workmen. 7. Shri M.P.S. Chauhan learned counsel for the respondent workmen would submit that the minimum wages were not paid and that under Section 21 (4) of the Act of 1970, if the contractor does not pay the minimum wages, the principal employer is liable to pay the difference between the minimum wages and the wages paid to the workmen. 8. The ‘dairy farming’ in Part-II of the Schedule does not include the business of a cooperative society engaged in collecting, processing, packing and selling milk. The State of U.P. however has notified the ‘dairy and milk dairies’ as a scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act 1948. The entry reads as follows : “56. Employment in dairy, milk dairies." 9. The petitioner cooperative society is engaged in purchasing milk from primary with cooperative societies processing for pausterising which includes processes of cooling, packing and selling milk and milk products. The entry reads as follows : “56. Employment in dairy, milk dairies." 9. The petitioner cooperative society is engaged in purchasing milk from primary with cooperative societies processing for pausterising which includes processes of cooling, packing and selling milk and milk products. This activity would definitely fall in the scheduled employment in Item 56 of the Schedule notified by the State of U.P as ‘dairy & milk dairies’, and to which the Act of 1948 will apply. 10. Section 21 of the Act of 1970 provides for the responsibility for payment of minimum wages. Primarily this responsibility is on the contractor under sub-section (1) of Section 21. However, where the contractor fails to make the payment of wages within the prescribed period or make short payment, sub section (4) provides that the principal employer shall be liable to make payment in full or the unpaid balance due 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. The wages are defined under Section 2 (h) of the Act of 1970 as wages which will have the meaning assigned to it in clause (vi) of Section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Section 2 (h) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, defines word ‘wages’ as follows : “2 (h) “wages” means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and includes house rent allowance, but does not include, (i) the value of— (a) any house accommodation, supply of light, water, medical attendance, or (b) any other amenity or any service excluded by general or special order of the appropriate Government; (ii) any contribution paid by the employer to any Pension Fund or Provident Fund or under any scheme of social insurance; (iii) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession; (iv) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or (v) any gratuity payable on discharge;.” 11. In the present case the Prescribed Authority has recorded findings of fact that most of the employees were engaged through the contractors and that all the employees had worked in the scheduled employment of dairy and were not paid minimum wages. The penalty of Rs. 1000/- is fairly reasonable and does not call for interference as the penalty upto ten times and paid wages could be recovered from the contractors. 12. The petitioner’s registration under Section-7 of the Act of 1970, and the licences granted to the contractors who had engaged almost all the workmen/employees, will not exempt or take away the statutory liability for ensuring payment of minimum wages. The documents including wage registers to prove that the contractors had paid minimum wages were not produced before the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner has also not disputed the amount of minimum wages fixed and notified by the State Government. 13. Shri G.D. Misra would contend that the petitioner will be made entitled to recover the amount from the contractors. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act of 1970 gives a right to the principal employer, where it is made responsible, to pay the short payment to the employees, to deduct the amount from the contractors or to recover such amount as debt payable to the contractors. On the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, that the contractors had not paid the minimum wages, it will be open to the petitioner to realise the amount awarded by the Prescribed Authority including the penalty from the contractors. 14. The writ petition is dismissed. ———