As per case facts, the petitioner, a contractor, was engaged by the Regional Mental Hospital for housekeeping services. The employees formed a Union, the first respondent, which then filed a ... complaint alleging unfair labor practices and seeking payment of minimum wages. The Industrial Court partially allowed this complaint, directing the petitioner to comply with minimum wage notifications. Following this, an application for recovery of differential wages was also allowed. The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that the principal employer, not the contractor, bears the primary responsibility for ensuring minimum wage payments under the Contract Labour Act. The question arose whether the Industrial Court erred in placing the sole burden of minimum wage payment on the contractor, considering the statutory framework that outlines the primary and secondary liabilities of the contractor and principal employer, respectively, under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Finally, the Court dismissed both writ petitions, affirming the Industrial Court's judgment. It clarified that while the principal employer has a secondary liability for wage payment in cases of contractor default, the primary obligation rests with the contractor. The Court stressed that the contractor cannot evade its responsibility by claiming non-receipt of funds from the principal employer, as this would undermine the Act's purpose of safeguarding workers' wages. The Court ordered the petitioner to comply with the directions for differential wages within four weeks.