ORDER : 1. The inquiry conducted, as contained in Annexure-22, by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad-II and order dated 21.11.2018 issued under the signature of G.M. (RED), SAIL (Steel Authority of India Limited) whereby and where under direction has been issued upon the petitioner to give payment to the workmen of M/s Chanda Refractory Works in presence of Labour Officer, Engineer in charge, failing which the Bokaro Steel Limited (BSL) subsidiary of the BSL shall be compelled to recover Rs.47,55,816/86P and all outstanding dues of BSL or, if required elsewhere in cell. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the midst of the arguments submits that he has not been heard so far as the claim of 80 (eighty) workers who have been supplied by the Respondent No.8 rather he has been noticed only on a complaint made by five workers who have been supplied by the Respondent No.8. Upon such notice, he has put his appearance before the Deputy Labour Chief Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad and therefore, it cannot be said to be providing adequate and sufficient opportunity since he is denying the claim of the eighty workers. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted by the Chief Labour Commissioner Dhanbad, which pertains to only five workers. The liability of eighty workers cannot be casted upon the petitioner- unit without adequate hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted by referring to the provision of Section 2(b) and Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 that the fact about the supply of Workers through Respondent No.8 in favour of the petitioner since dispute has been raised that Respondent No.8 has not made payment in favour of the workers from whom they have taken work. 4. He submits that the Bokaro Steel Limited being the principal employer is to comply the statutory provision as contained sub Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, 1970 and resorting the aforesaid provision, the order has been passed on 21.11.2017 (Annexure-27 to the writ petition). 5. 4. He submits that the Bokaro Steel Limited being the principal employer is to comply the statutory provision as contained sub Section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, 1970 and resorting the aforesaid provision, the order has been passed on 21.11.2017 (Annexure-27 to the writ petition). 5. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he has entered into an agreement with Respondent No.8 which employed the petitioner and Respondent No.8 to get the matter adjudicated if there is any dispute on account of their dispute the entitlement of the worker cannot be given go and by therefore as a principal employer, he has acted in terms of the statutory provision as contained under Section 21(4) of the Act, 1970. 6. Mr. Binod Singh, Learned counsel for the Central Government submits that the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner has initiated a proceeding on the basis of the complaint made by five workers but going across the entire aspect of the matter and taking into consideration the fact altogether eighty workers have been supplied by the Respondent No.8 therefore there is no infirmity in the said enquiry report/direction, moreover the petitioner has put his appearance before the said authority wherein he has also filed written statement and after considering and providing an opportunity wherein a detail enquiry has been conducted on the basis of the rival contention, direction has been issued directing the petitioner to make payment of remuneration in favour of the worker therefore there is no illegality in the aforesaid enquiry/direction. 7. Mr. P.C. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.8 submits that he is ready to make payment of the amount but the same is not being disbursed by the petitioner, therefore the Respondent No.8 is helpless in making the payment of remuneration in favour of the workers. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident from the material available on record that it is not in dispute after going across the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties that the worker from whom the work has been taken by the petitioner-company as has been supplied by Respondent No.8 in pursuance to the agreement between them, the petitioner has entered into an agreement with B.S.L. for execution of the worker. 9. 9. It is evident from the provision of Section 2(b) which contains the definition of contract labour that workman shall be deemed to be employed as contract labour in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. 10. The aforesaid definition of contract labour clearly stipulates that the workman from whom the worker who have been employed as a contract labour in connection with the work even if on hired basis or in connection with such work by or through a contractor will be said to be a contract labour. 11. Under the provision of Act, 1970 that there is no provision pari materia to the provision as contained under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, requiring the workman to make a complaint before the authority agitating the claim regarding the payment of wages or less wages save and except provision as contained under Section 21 of the Act, 1970 as follows. “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 authorized 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 authorized 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 authorized 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.” It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the 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. Sub-Section (4) of the aforesaid section stipulates that 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 by the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor meaning thereby, it is the responsibility and accountability of the principal employer to ensure payment in favour of the workmen, if in case the contractor is not making payment, subject to its recovery by any mode from the contractor. The scope of Section 21 has been dealt with and discussed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Labour and Ors., reported in (1996) 10 SCC 599 , from perusal of the provision of Section as also the punishment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove it is evident that the liability for payment of wages to each employee engaged by a contractor as contract labour is of the contractor. But in case the contractor fails to make payment of wages, then principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the workers. But in case the contractor fails to make payment of wages, then principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the workers. The principal employer, in turn is entitled to recover the amount so paid from the contractor. Thus it is clear that under Section 21 also the responsibility for payment of wages of contract labourers is on the contractor who employs them. In case of any default by the contractor, the principal employer is required to make good the default, but at the cost of the contractor from whom the principal employer can recover the amount. The Act suggests that in no case the workmen will be put at loss and the interest is to be protected i.e. the spirit of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, since the aforesaid Act stipulates discharge of two responsibilities towards the contract labour, one pertains to Regulation and second pertains to Abolition, if the Contract Labour is allowed to be continued the regulatory measures is to be taken and in case no regulatory measure the contract labour is to be abolished under the provision of Act, 1970. Regulation suggests that the workmen cannot be subjected to any exploitation at the hand of the employer and for that the one of the provision of Section 21 is inserted in the Act 1970. 12. This Court has gathered from the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties that the duty rendered by the workmen is not in dispute rather only the number of workmen engaged is being disputed by the petitioner. 13. In view thereof, the claim of the workman cannot be said to be in genuine therefore this Court is not interfering with the opinion given by Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad as also the decision taken by the Bokaro Steel Limited Cell to know that the question arises that the number of workmen, the petitioner claims that he has taken no workmen from eighty workers rather the complaint is only by five workmen but the entire liability of eighty workers has been casted upon it and therefore the order has been passed by Bokaro Steel Limited forfeiting the amount reflecting of Rs.47,55,816/86P towards the liability for making payment in faovur of the workmen is not proper. The other aspect of the matter is also need to be seen if the workmen have performed their duty, they are legally entitled for the remuneration, therefore, it is to be seen by the authority that the remuneration be extended to real worker therefore, the petition as allowed the Respondent No.8 will furnish the list of workmen along with the muster-roll in support of rendering the duty for the work in question which shall be filed before the Deputy Chief Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, as also the Bokaro Steel Limited for its corroboration by the said authority for insuring payment in favour of the genuine workmen. 14. The said exercise is to be done by the petitioner as also by the Respondent No.8 and the Bokaro Steel Limited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. The said list shall be produced before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner within the aforesaid period and the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad will scrutinize the list and ensure payment in favour of the genuine workers upon proper identification who have discharged their duty. 16. In view thereof, this writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.