JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. M. M. Pal, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 2. Challenge in this writ application is to the order dated 04.12.1995, (Annexure-3), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh in P.W. Case No. 11 of 1990, whereby the application of the Respondent No. 1, namely, the workmen represented by the Union was allowed, holding them entitled to get wages for the period claimed as per N.C.W.A. III and directing further, that the petitioner, namely, the Management of the Central Coalfields Ltd. to pay the difference of wages to the workmen. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the judgment dated-22.02.2002, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh (Appellate Court) in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 1996 (Annexure-4), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Labour Court was dismissed. 3. The impugned orders have been assailed on the grounds, inter alia, (i) That the findings of the Presiding officer, Labour Court, are not in consonance with the evidences on record and is, therefore, perverse. (ii) In absence of employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1-workmen, the courts below are not justified in law in directing the petitioner, instead of the Respondent No. 2, to make payment of the difference of wages to the workmen. (iii) That the learned court below has committed a serious error by making the petitioner vicariously liable on behalf of the contractor, for not making the payment of the N.C.W.A. III wages with effect from 01.01.1983 although admittedly N.C.W.A. III was finalized only on 11.11.1983 and was given to effect by Implementation Instruction No. 1, dated-21.11.1983. 4. The facts of the petitioner’s case are as follows:- (a) For the purposes of cleaning and washing the slurry ponds of the washeries, the petitioner-Company used to engage contractors to whom contracts used to be awarded through Tenders followed by Agreements. (b) The Contractor used to submit the bills from time to time which were verified by the representatives of the petitioner, and payments accordingly, used to be made to the contractors who in their turn, used to disburse wages as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the Agreement. (b) The Contractor used to submit the bills from time to time which were verified by the representatives of the petitioner, and payments accordingly, used to be made to the contractors who in their turn, used to disburse wages as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the Agreement. Thus, the liability to pay wages to the workers, employed by the contractors, was entirely upon the Contractors. (c) In the coal Industry, wages is paid to the non-executive employees and workmen as per the wages fixed by the National Coal Wage Agreement (N.C.W.A.). (d) The Contractor under whom the Respondent-workmen were employed, used to disburse wages to the workmen as per the rate fixed by the N.C.W.A. and as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement entered into with the petitioner-Company (e) The N.C.W.A. II was enforced for about four years and thereafter, N.C.W.A. III was finalized by the Joint Tripartite Committee and the Coal Industry, on 11.11.1982 and the same was implemented by virtue of the implementation instructions No. 1, dated 21.11.1983, with effect from 01.01.1983. (f) The Respondent No. 1-workmen filed an application on 06.05.1987 under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, principally against the Contractor (Respondent No. 2) and also against the petitioner, alleging therein, that the Contractor workers have not been paid their wages as per the N.C.W.A. III. (g) Claiming their right under the N.C.W.A. III, the workmen had demanded the arrears of wages at the wage rate stipulated under the N.C.W.A. III, from 01.01.1983 and not from 01.01.1984. (h) The petitioner contested the claim of the workmen denying its liability to pay any amount as claimed by the Respondent No. 1 on the ground that the liability, if any, is of the Contractor/Respondent No. 2 and therefore, it is not liable to pay the wages to the workmen. (i) At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Labour Court accepted the claim of the workman and by its impugned order (Annexure-4) and directed the petitioner to make payment of the difference of wages to the workmen. (j) Being aggrieved with the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 17 (1) (A) of the Payment of Wages Act, before the appellate authority. The appeal was however, dismissed by the impugned judgment (Annexure-3). (j) Being aggrieved with the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 17 (1) (A) of the Payment of Wages Act, before the appellate authority. The appeal was however, dismissed by the impugned judgment (Annexure-3). Consequently, a demand for payment of Rs.10,53,000/-was raised against the petitioner and a Distress Warrant was issued against the petitioner for realization of the amount through Execution Proceedings, which was initiated vide Misc. Case No. 01 of 2004 before the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. 5. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that even as admitted by the workmen, they were essentially the employees of the Contractors and not a single chit of paper has been produced even to remotely suggest that they were the employees of the petitioner-Company. Furthermore, under the Contract entered by and between the Company and the Contractor (Respondent No. 2), the wages as per the rates stipulated under the N.C.W.A., was to be paid exclusively by the Contractor. The only obligation of the petitioner-Company was to ensure that the wages are paid at the rate, which was applicable to the workmen. The bills submitted by the Contractor towards the payment of wages, had therefore to be whetted by the officials of the petitioner-Company. Learned counsel argues that the learned court below has seriously erred in ignoring these vital admitted facts and in recording its finding, imposing vicarious liability on the petitioner-Company, which is totally against the provisions of law, perverse and unjustified. Learned counsel argues that there being no alternative or efficacious remedy, the petitioner has preferred to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned orders. Learned counsel informs that since it was mandatory for the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of demand, at the time of preferring the Appeal, the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount before the concerned authorities. Learned counsel submits further, that even otherwise, since the claim for arrears of wages relates to the year 1983, it would be for the Contractor to identify all such employees to whom the payment has to be disbursed and the petitioner cannot possibly therefore, be called upon to do the same. The payments have therefore, to be made through the court below. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Workmen (Respondent No. 1). The payments have therefore, to be made through the court below. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Workmen (Respondent No. 1). A preliminary objection has been taken on the ground that since there are concurrent findings of both the courts below on facts, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to go into the facts nor can this Court sit as a Court of appeal. Mrs. M.M.Pal, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1workmen explains that admittedly funds for payment of wages is allotted by the petitioner-Company to the concerned contractor and in this view of the matter, the learned court below was justified in law in directing the petitioner-Company to make payment of the wages to the concerned employees. Learned counsel explains further that the workmen were undisputedly entitled to the payment of wages as per the terms of the N.C.W.A. III, which was made effective from 01.01.1983. The petitioner-Company having acknowledged the right of the workmen, had provided the funds for payment of wages to the workmen at the rates prescribed under the N.C.W.A. III. The petitioner-Company cannot escape its liability on behalf of the Contractor since the Company was responsible to ensure the payment of wages to the workers at the rate at which the workers were entitled for payment. 7. In course of arguments, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 invites attention to I.A. No. 550 of 2009 filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and informs that the petitioner-Company had deposited the entire amount of Rs.10,41,407/-, before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh. Upon such deposit being made, the Labour Court by its order dated 14.11.2006 had directed that 50 % of the deposited amount be paid to the workmen’s Union on the identification by the concerned lawyer. Such order was though made, subject to the condition that the Union-representative shall furnish a surety bond for the total deposited amount. Learned counsel submits that such order of the court below is illegal and arbitrary, since the amount is intended to be disbursed amongst the workmen towards payment of the arrears of wages and such liability being that of the Respondent No. 2, the learned court below ought to have entrusted the entire amount to the Respondent No. 2 to enable him to disburse the wages. Learned counsel argues that as per the impugned orders of the Labour Court, the entire amount of arrears of wages was to be paid alongwith ten per cent interest but the petitioner has not deposited the amount of interest, which it had to pay. 8. From the rival submissions and from the admitted facts, it appears that there is no dispute about the fact that the Respondent-workmen (Respondent No. 1) are the employees of the Contractor and not that of the petitioner-Company. It also transpires that under the terms of contract entered into by and between the contractor and the petitioner-Company, the Contactor had to pay the wages to his workmen at the rate stipulated in the N.C.W.A. Agreements. The petitioner-Company had to ensure that the workmen are paid their wages in accordance with the wages as prescribed under the N.C.W.A. Undisputedly, the Contractors used to obtain funds from the petitioner’s Company for payment of the wages to his workers. Such payment used to be made at the rate prescribed by the N.C.W.A. Under such circumstances, the benefit of the revised rate of wages as per the N.C.W.A. III, cannot be denied to the workmen from the date when it was made effective. The primary liability to pay the wages on the workmen, were on the Contractor (Respondent No. 2) while the petitioner company was obliged to ensure that the wages are paid at the prescribed rates. 9. I have perused the impugned order both of the Labour Court and that of the appellate court and I do not find any perversity in neither of the orders. From the impugned order of the learned Labour court, it appears that these very aspects have been considered by the court below, and taking into consideration the admitted fact that the funds, as per the bills raised by the Contractor, used to be provided by the petitioner-Company, the learned court below had directed the petitioner-Company to deposit the entire amounts of arrears of wages. The contention of the petitioner that by the impugned orders, a vicarious liability has been imposed on the petitioner appears to be misplaced and rather, misconceived. The contention of the petitioner that by the impugned orders, a vicarious liability has been imposed on the petitioner appears to be misplaced and rather, misconceived. Under the terms of contract by which the services of the Contractor was engaged by the petitioner-Company, it was the obligation of the petitioner-Company to ensure that the wages are paid to the employees of the Contractor at the rate, it has been made legally payable to such employees. The learned court below has merely directed the petitioner-Company to follow the same procedure only to ensure that the workers are paid their due wages. 10. The direction of the learned court below also included the payment of the principal amount together with interest @ 10 per cent per annum. As it appears, the petitioner had deposited the principal amount only and not the amount of interest. The petitioner is therefore liable to deposit the interest amount at the rate stipulated by the order of the Labour court. However, such payment shall be computed from the date of passing of the impugned order by the appellate court and till the date when the principal amount was deposited by the petitioner. 11. The learned Labour court shall pass appropriate orders to ensure that the amount of arrears on wages are paid to and received by the genuine workmen or their legal representatives, identified by the Contractor (Respondent No. 2) and approved by the workmen’s union, within four months from the date of this order. 12. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of. 13. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1.