Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 67 (ALL)

Gaurav Kumar v. State of U. P.

2020-01-07

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. Petitioners claim that they are working in the Nagar Palika Parishad Pilkhuwa, District Hapur and that the respondents without any justification are withholding payment of salary to them. According to petitioners they are entitled to payment of salary but the same has been withheld w.e.f. 1.12.2018. Prayer is made to direct the respondents to release the withheld salary alongwith interest. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are continuously working, but salary is not being paid to them. 2. Sri. Gambhir Tripathi who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the petitioners are not the employees of the local authorities and that they apparently have been engaged by contractors who are allocated works for supplying manpower. Submission is that there is no direct employee-employer relationship between the petitioners and the Nagar Palika Parishad and, therefore, the petitioners have no right to claim payment of salary from the respondents. Learned Counsel for the respondents has also placed on record an agreement signed between the Nagar Palika Parishad and the Contractor, which is taken on record. 3. Perusal of the record would go to show that though petitioners claim to have been appointed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, but no letter of appointment is on record. The Attendance Register, which has been annexed alongwith the writ petition, is verified by one Supervisor. There is also a report by two employees of Nagar Palika Parishad, which is made the basis of petitioners claim. This report apparently is by a Fitter and a Supervisor. They are not the competent authority of the local authority, who could engage any person or certify the working on behalf of the local authority. 4. From the materials that have been placed on record, it appears that petitioners are engaged through Contractor and their rights to receive wages etc. This report apparently is by a Fitter and a Supervisor. They are not the competent authority of the local authority, who could engage any person or certify the working on behalf of the local authority. 4. From the materials that have been placed on record, it appears that petitioners are engaged through Contractor and their rights to receive wages etc. would be against the Contractor and not against the Local Authorities; Even otherwise, whether or not the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 have been complied or a direct employee-employer relationship has come into existence between the petitioners and the local authority is a question, which can only be decided by an Industrial Adjudicator in view of the constitution bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others, 2001 (91) FLR 182 (SC). Remedy of petitioner is, therefore, to approach the Industrial Adjudicator in respect of their grievance and a writ petition for such purpose would not be the appropriate remedy. 5. Leaving it open for the petitioners to approach the Industrial Adjudicator, the writ petitions are consigned to records. It is, however, provided that in case petitioners approach the Industrial Adjudicator, their claim shall be dealt with, expeditiously.