Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3170 OF 2025

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 3172 OF 2025

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution

Company Limited ...Petitioner

V/s.

Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh ...Respondent

______________

Mr. Prashant Chavan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nirav Shah and Ms.

Richika Kadam i/b M/s. Little & Co. for Petitioner.

Mr. G. R. Naik with Mr. Uresh U. Sawant and Ms. Rutika Naik i/b Mr. G.R.

Naik Co., for Respondent No. 4.

______________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

RESERVED ON: 14 JULY 2026.

PRONOUNCED ON: 21 JULY 2026.

JUDGMENT:

1) By these two petitions, the Petitioner has challenged the

Awards dated 24 April 2024, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal, Thane in Reference (IT) Nos. 12 of 2018 and 16 of 2020. The

Industrial Tribunal has answered the References in the affirmative and

has directed the Petitioner to pay difference of arrears of wages at the

Page No. 1 of 22

21 JULY 2026 2026:BHC-AS:29905

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

rate of minimum of the pay scale at the lowest grade as that of

permanent employees to the members of the Respondent-Union w.e.f.

December 2016 in case of Reference (IT) No. 12 of 2018 and from May

2016 in case of Reference (IT) No. 16 of 2020.

2) Petitioner is Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Company

Limited which has taken over the distribution undertaking of the

erstwhile Maharashtra Electricity Board. Petitioner is registered with the

Competent Authority under the provisions of Contract Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (CLRA Act).

3) It appears that the Government of Maharashtra had

imposed ban on new recruitment on the establishment of the Petitioner,

which created difficulties for the Petitioner in carrying out its day-to-day

work. Petitioner therefore decided to award contracts for supply of

skilled and unskilled contract workers. Accordingly, work orders were

issued to various contractors from time to time for supply of manpower.

The contract workers started assisting the regular employees of

Petitioners in technical cadre such as Lineman, Meter Readers, etc.

Petitioner, however, denies any employer-employee relationship between

it and the contract workers.

4) Respondent in both petitions represent 40 + 49 contract

workers. A demand was served by the Respondent-Union on the

Petitioner on 5 April 2017 demanding equal wages to the contract

workers as paid to the permanent employees of the Petitioner. The

Page No. 2 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

Respondent-Union thereafter approached the office of Commissioner of

Labour. After failure of conciliation proceedings, the Additional

Commissioner of Labour made References to the Industrial Tribunal,

Thane vide orders dated 16 March 2018 and 18 March 2020. In respect of

Writ Petition No. 3172 of 2025, Reference (IT) No. 12 of 2018 was

registered, whereas in respect of Writ Petition No. 3170 of 2025,

Reference (IT) No. 16 of 2020 was registered. The Respondent-Union

filed its statement of claim, which was resisted by the Petitioner by filing

written statement. The Respondent-Union led evidence of contract

workers. By separate Awards delivered on 24 April 2024, the Industrial

Tribunal has answered both the References in the affirmative, holding

that the contract workers were entitled to receive equal pay for equal

work in the form of minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest cadre in the

regular pay-scale) as that of permanent employees of the Petitioner. The

Industrial Tribunal has accordingly directed the Petitioners to pay to the

members of the Respondent-Union difference of wages calculated at the

rate of minimum of the pay scale payable to the permanent employees

with effect from December 2016 in case of Reference (IT) No. 12 of 2018

and from May 2016 in case of Reference (IT) No. 16 of 2020. The Awards

dated 24 April 2024 are the subject matter in the present petitions.

5) Mr. Chavan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

Petitioner submits that the Industrial Tribunal has grossly erred in

answering the References in the affirmative. He submits that there can

never be comparison between the workers engaged by the contractors

and permanent employees of the Petitioner. That the wages of the

Page No. 3 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

contract workers are not decided by the Petitioner and that Petitioner

merely pays the contract value based on tender process implemented by

it. He submits that it is for the contractor to decide how much wages are

to be paid to its worker. He submits that the ratio of the judgment of the

Apex Court in State of Punjab Versus. Jagjit Singh and Ors.

1

cannot be

extended to workers who are engaged by the contractors. He relies on

judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal Council, Nandyal Municipality

Versus. K Jayaram and others.

2

6) Mr. Chavan further submits that the Industrial Tribunal has

erroneously relied on provisions of Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolishing) Rules,1971 (Maharashtra Rules) in

the present case. That the contract workers do not perform same nature

of work as performed by the permanent employees. That the burden was

on Respondent-Union to prove similarity in the nature of work which is

not discharged by them. He relies on admissions given in the cross

examination of the Respondents’ witness about failure to produce any

documentary evidence to demonstrate similarity of work. He submits

that a specific defence was raised in the written statement before the

Industrial Tribunal about difference of work performed by the contract

workers and the permanent employees. He submits that in any case, the

ratio of the judgment in Municipal Council, Nandyal Municipality

(supra) would prevail over the interpretation made by the Tribunal in

respect of Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Rules. He prays for setting aside

the impugned Awards.

1

2017 (1) SCC 148

2

SLP(C) NO. 17711 of 2019 decided on 16 December 2025.

Page No. 4 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

7) Mr. Naik the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-

Union, opposes both the petitions. He submits that the contract workers

are engaged by the Petitioners in view of ban imposed by the

Government of Maharashtra on new recruitment. That contract workers

are engaged with a view to come over the difficulty of absence of regular

manpower. That therefore contract workers are required to perform same

duties and responsibilities as performed by the permanent employees.

That the Respondent-Union led evidence of performance of same duties

and responsibilities by the contract workers. He submits that Petitioner

has registered itself under the provisions of CLRA Act and that therefore

it is statutorily obliged to follow the provisions of Rule 25 of the

Maharashtra Rules. That in addition to provisions of Rule 25 of the

Maharashtra Rules, the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh lays

down a clear law that employer cannot distinguish between contract

workers and regular employees in the matter of payment of wages. He

submits that the judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal Council,

Nandyal Municipality is delivered in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of that case where the issue before the Apex Court was

with regard to regularization of contract workers. That the Apex Court

has indeed granted regularization to the contract workers. That therefore

the said judgment does not assist the case of the Petitioner in any

manner. He prays for dismissal of the petition.

8) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for

my consideration.

Page No. 5 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

9) The issue involved in the petition is whether workers

engaged by the contractors of the Petitioner are entitled to receive wages

in the minimum of pay scale payable to the permanent employees of the

Petitioner. Petitioner has apparently engaged large number of contract

workers to take care of manpower requirement due to ban imposed by

the State Government for new recruitment. Petitioner has placed on

record one of the work orders placed on M/s. Shagun Guards Security

Agency in pursuance of tender floated for providing outsourcing

manpower for Pen Circle Office, Pen Testing Division, Roha Division and

Panvel Division. As per the work order, the contractor was required to

supply man power in the form of skilled persons into technical cadres,

semi-skilled persons in technical and non-technical cadres and unskilled

persons (Poen). It appears that the total manpower requirement was for

222 personnel under the work order. The rates payable per person per

day were as under:

RATE PER PERSON PER DAY including Bonus and excluding

contractor service charge/Profit as per revised Special

Allowance/DA effective from 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2019 is as below:

1) Skilled Persons (Technical) -Rs492/-

2) For Semi-Skilled Persons (Technical & Non-Technical)-Rs 471/-

3) For Unskilled Person (Peon) - Rs 450/-

10) This is how Petitioner was required to hire manpower for

carrying out its activities by issuing various contracts throughout the

State.

Page No. 6 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

11) At the instance of the Respondent-Union, two References

were registered before the Industrial Tribunal, Thane for adjudication of

demands relating to equal pay for equal work. The Tribunal has answered

the References in the affirmative by issuing following directions.

i. Reference (IT) No. 16 of 2020, is Answered in Affirmative.

ii. It is hereby held that the Member Employees of the Second Party

Employees Union are entitled to receive Equal Pay for Equal Work, and

are entitled to the Wages at the Minimum of the Pay-Scale (at the

Lowest Grade, in the Regular Pay-scale) as that of Permanent

Employees of the First Party Management.

iii. The First Party Management is hereby directed to pay all the

difference of Arrears of Wages, at the rate of the Minimum of the Pay-

Scale (at the Lowest Grade, in the Regular Pay- Scale, as that of

Permanent Employees of the First Party Management), to the Member

Employees of the Second Party Employees Union, as are named in the

List Annexed to the Schedule of Reference, with effect from May 2016,

till the date of their engagement, within a period Six Months from the

date of Publication of this Award.

iv. First Party Management is further directed to pay to the Member

Employees of the Second Party Employees Union, as are named in the

List Annexed to the Schedule of Reference, wages equal to wages of the

Minimum of the Pay-Scale (at the Lowest Grade, in the Regular Pay-

Scale, as that of Permanent Employees of the First Party Management),

in the similar category, for which the Member Employees are engaged.

v. List of the Member Employees, Annexed to the Schedule of Reference,

shall form the part of this Award.

vi. No order as to costs.

vii. Cost of this Award be sent to the Competent Authority, for its

publication. 

12) The Industrial Tribunal has inter-alia relied on ratio of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh in which the Apex Court has

held that the principle of equal pay for equal work would apply to all

Page No. 7 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

temporary workers who are differently described as work charged, daily

wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual etc. The Apex Court has held that such

temporary employees need to be paid wages at the minimum of the pay

scale (at the lowest grade in the regular pay scale) extended to the

regular employees holding the same post. The Apex Court has held in

Jagjit Singh as under:

57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for

equal work’ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions

of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large

number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law

declared by this Court The same is binding on all the courts in India,

under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the

principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove.

The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to

temporary employees (differently described as workcharge, daily-wage,

casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to

temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44

hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly

declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again.

58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial

parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same

work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties

and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action

besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human

dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do

so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at

the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and

at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would

suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of

paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes

an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering

position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and

coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.

60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the

application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, in relation to

temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees,

employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the

like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the

Page No. 8 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties

and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees,

holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the

application of the parameters of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal

work’ summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the

instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to

record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly

acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab,

that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were

appointed against posts which were also available in the regular

cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of

their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being

randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at

some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise,

regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to

discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees,

from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the

duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in

the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by

regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the

respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for

appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the

State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay

parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42

hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for

equal work’ would be applicable to all the concerned temporary

employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with

the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government

employees, holding the same post.

61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph,

we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary

employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw

wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (- at the lowest grade, in the

regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same

post.

13) The law expounded in Jagjit Singh has been reiterated by the

Apex Court in Sabha Shanker Dube Versus. Divisional Forest Officer

and others

3

in which it is held in paras-11 and 12 as under:

3

2019 12 SCC 297

Page No. 9 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

11. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh is

whether temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc

appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual

employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay

scales on account of their performing the same duties which are

discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned

posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of

this Court in Tilak Raj and Surjit Singh, this Court held that temporary

employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales

which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post.

12. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh, we are unable to uphold the

view of the High Court that the appellants herein are not entitled to be

paid the minimum of the pay scales. We are not called upon to

adjudicate on the rights of the appellants relating to the regularisation

of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by

this Court initially in Putti Lal Z relating to persons who are similarly

situated to the appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh that

temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long

as they continue in service. 

14) Thus, as per the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in

Jagjit Singh, where temporary workers are engaged by the employer

under whatever nomenclature, they must be paid wages in the minimum

of the pay scale which is extended to the permanent employees. The

ratio of the judgment however essentially applies where there is a direct

engagement by the employer of temporary workers. The Apex Court has

undoubtedly used the word 'contractual' while describing the temporary

employees. However, sometimes employers do make direct contractual

engagement of workers. There may be direct contracts executed between

the employer and the workman or even in absence of a formal contract,

the nature of engagement is described as contractual. However, in both

the cases, there is direct relationship between the employer and the

worker and the wages are paid to the worker directly by the employer.

The difficulty arises when the employer issues contract to an agency for

Page No. 10 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

supply of manpower. The contractor quotes the rates of wages payable to

the workers to be supplied to the employer and on the basis of rates so

offered in the competitive bidding process, decision is taken by awarding

contract to a particular contractor. The employer then pays a lump-sum

amount to the contractor and it becomes the responsibility of the

contractor to pay the wages to its own workers. The employer is not

really concerned with the wages actually paid by the contractor to its

workers.

15) However, engagement of contract workers is governed by

the provisions of CLRA Act. Under Section 21 of the CLRA Act, though it

is the primary responsibility of the contractor to pay wages, the principal

employer becomes liable to pay wages in the event of failure by the

contractor to pay wages. In exercise of powers under Section 35 of the

CLRA Act, the State of Maharashtra has notified Maharashtra Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971. Under Rule 25 of the

Maharashtra Rules, one of the conditions for grant of license for

engagement of contract workers is with regard to the wages payable to

them. Rule 25 (2)(iv)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Rules deal with wages

payable to the contract workers. Under Rule 25 (2)(iv)(a), the rates of

wages payable to the workmen by the contractor cannot be less than the

minimum rates of wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act,1948.

However, under Rule 25 (2)(iv)(b), where a workman employed by the

contractor performs same kind of work as workman directly employed by

the principal employer, the rates of wages payable to the workman of the

contractor shall be the rates payable to the workman directly employed

Page No. 11 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

by the principal employer doing same kind of work. Rule 25 (2)(iv)(a) and

(b) provides thus:

25. Form and terms and conditions of licence:-

(1) Every licence granted under Rule 23 or renewed under Rule 29 shall

be in Form No. VI.

(2) Every such licence shall be subject to the following conditions,

namely:-

(i) the licence shall be non-transferable;

(ii) the number of workmen employed as contract labour in the

establishment shall not, on any day, exceed the maximum number

specified in the licence;

(iii) save as provided in these rules, the fees paid for the grant, or as the

case may be, for renewal of the licence shall be non-refundable;

(iv) (a) The rate of wages payable to the workmen by a contractor shall

not be less than the minimum rates of wages fixed under the Minimum

Wages Act, where that Act applies, where the rates have been fixed by

agreement, settlement or award shall not be less than the rates so fixed,

and where rates have been fixed under the Minimum Wages Act and

also under any agreement, settlement or award, the rates, shall not be

less than the higher of the two rates;

(b) where the workmen employed by the contractor perform the

same kind of work as the workmen or a class of workmen directly

employed by the principal employer, the rates of wages payable to

the workmen by the contractor shall be the rates payable to the

workmen directly employed by the principal employer doing the

same kind of work.

(c) in any other case, the rates of wages shall be such as may be

specified in this behalf by the Commissioner of Labour;

xxx

(emphasis added)

16) Thus, it is a statutory duty imposed under Rule 25(2)(iv)(b)

of the Maharashtra Rules on the contractor to pay same wages to its

workers as payable to the workmen of principal employer if both perform

same kind of work.

Page No. 12 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

17) The Tribunal has conducted a factual inquiry about the

nature of work performed by the members of the Respondent-Union.

After assessing the evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal has

recorded findings that the members of the Respondent-Union perform

same work as is performed by the regular employees of the Petitioner. I

have my own limitations for interfering in the said finding of the fact

recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, unless a case of perversity is made

out. In fact, Petitioner has emphatically admitted in the Petition that

engagement of contract workers is necessitated on account of ban

imposed by the State of Government on new recruitment. This is clear

from pleadings in paragraph 3.1 of the Petition which reads thus:

3.1 There was totally ban on new recruitment as per notification issued

by the Government of Maharashtra. There were vacancies due to

retirement, restructuring, increased in consumers and to overcome the

situation and providing better service to the consumer, the Petitioner

requires manpower for its day-to-day work and therefore invites/floated

tenders for providing skilled and unskilled contract workers.

18) Thus, contract workers are engaged on account of shortage

of manpower due to retirement/promotion coupled with ban by the State

Government. The contract workers are thus engaged to perform the work

which is supposed to be performed by the regular employees. From the

Work Order relied upon by the Petitioner, it is clear that contract workers

are engaged to perform duties of Driver, Up Kendra Sahayyak, Vidyut

Sahayyak, Office Assistant, Peon, etc. Thus, whenever regular employees

of MSEDCL retire or get promoted, the post vacated by him/her is

manned by contract workers. The Petitioner has itself admitted in the

Page No. 13 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

Petition that the contract workers are engaged in view of recruitment

ban imposed by the State Government. There is ample material on record

which is relied upon by the Respondent-Union to infer that there is

similarity of work performed by regular and contract workers. In view of

the above position, though a contention is raised before me that there is

failure on the part of Respondent-Union to prove similarity in work, I am

not inclined to accept the said contention or to interfere in the findings

of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. I accordingly uphold the

finding that the contract workers are engaged to perform work of

permanent employees of the Petitioner.

19) Thus, provisions of Rule 25 (2)(iv)(b) of the Maharashtra

Rules would apply with full force in the present case and it is a statutory

duty to pay same wages to contract workers as are paid to the regular

employees of the Petitioner. Thus, the ratio of the judgment of the Apex

Court in Jagjit Singh is just an additional facet to be considered in the

present case. Otherwise, there is a statutory right of contract workers to

receive same wages as are paid to the regular employees. Here it must be

observed that the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh makes a

slight departure in favour of the employers in that it directs payment of

wages in the minimum of the pay scale. Thus, an Office Assistant

working with the Petitioner for 10 years may draw higher salary on

account of grant of 10 increments. However, his counterpart working on

contract basis would receive wages only in the minimum of the pay-

scale. To this extent, there would be some difference in the wages drawn

by the two employees on account of difference in length of service. Be

Page No. 14 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

that as it may. The minimum that needs to be paid to the contract

workers performing duties of regular employees is the wages in the

minimum of the pay scale.

20) Mr. Chavan has strenuously relied upon judgment of the

Apex Court in Municipal Council, Nandyal Municipality in support of

contention that the principle of equal pay for equal work and payment of

salary in the minimum of pay scale cannot be made applicable to the

workers of the contractor. The Apex Court has held in paragraphs 7, 8 and

9 of the judgment as under:

7. Having considered the matter, we find substance in the contention of

learned counsel for the appellant. The moot point on which the issue

revolves is the nature of employment/ relationship of the appellant

with the respondents. It is not in dispute that the appellant had

engaged the respondents and other similarly situated persons through

a contractor, which also had changed periodically. However, at the same

time, the respondents may have continued to work for the appellant,

though through some other contractor. Further, the respondents may

have also continued for long periods. Thus, at first blush the

reasoning may seem to be attractive that there was discrimination

as they were also performing the duties as was being performed by

other regular employees and were required to be suitably paid

and, at least, the minimum time scale of the pay attached to the

regular post, however, a deeper probe would reveal that the matter

cannot be dealt with in such a simplistic way. The test which

would actually throw light and would be relevant in the facts and

circumstances of the present case is to whether the relationship,

which is direct between two parties in whatever manner, can be

differentiated with a relationship which had no direct connection

with the two parties who are contesting, but rather the

relationship is through a third-party which in the present case is

the contractor.

8. From the facts discussed above, it is clear that the appellant had no

direct connection with the actual persons who were employed by the

contractor, i.e., the respondents. The obligation and responsibility of

the appellant was to pay to the contractor the amount which had been

Page No. 15 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

contracted and agreed to between the appellant and the contractor, and

the responsibility then was that of the contractor to ensure payment of

wages and other emoluments as per the terms of the contract to the

persons who were actually sent by the contractor to the appellant for

performing various types of job.

9. The Court would pause here to indicate that it is not anybody’s case

that the mode of employment through a contractor itself was illegal or

there was any illegality in the terms and conditions of the contract so as

to make it ultra vires any constitutional provision or to make it

discriminatory, and further there has been no challenge to such

contract or any of the terms stipulated in the contract. Another issue on

facts, which has been addressed by learned counsel for the respondents

is that the respondents could not have been exploited by the parties

and the fact that they were the same persons being sent, though

through different contractors itself shows that the relationship was

direct and only a sham camouflage was created; that of a contractor

being the intermediary. To this, in our considered view, the answer may

not be in clear black and white terms and is still a grey area for the

reason that even if the respondents were the same persons who actually

worked for the appellant, there can be instances where the new

contractor, to maintain continuity and to ensure that there is no

complaint from the employer, the appellant in the present case,

continues with the same persons who were already employed and were

working with the appellant. Thus, there is argument for and against

such stand, which we will not dwell on any further. Another issue which

has been flagged by learned senior counsel for the respondents is that

the respondents being in the position they are, and the relief given

being the minimum of the time scale of the pay attached to the regular

post cannot be termed as giving them something which was not due or

something excessive, for ultimately they also have a family to support

and they are also performing the job which is performed by people on

the regular establishment. We have absolutely no doubt in our mind

that such issue raised by learned senior counsel is of relevance, but the

Court feels that the mode of contractual employment, that too, by a

contractor and not directly by the employer will have to be seen in a

different light in the eyes of law. If all such distinctions between a

regular employee and such contractual employees is not made, then the

basic concept of hiring through various modes and in different capacity

would lose its purpose and sanctity and ultimately everybody would be

getting exactly the same benefit. This cannot be permitted in law for

the reason that employment under a State entity is a public asset and

every citizen of the country has a right to apply for it. In a regular

employment, directly made by the said State entity, there are

safeguards to ensure that the system of employment/engagement is

transparent and fulfills a minimum criterion and is open to all eligible

Page No. 16 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

persons and a mode/procedure is adopted for ultimately choosing the

right person. When employees/workmen are taken through a

contractor, it is the absolute discretion of the contractor as to whom

and through which mode he would choose such persons to be sent to

the principal. This is where the difference lies, which is a very valid

distinction in law. The reason why there are safeguards in regular

appointment is that there should not be any favoritism or other

extraneous consideration where persons, only on merit, are recruited

through a fully transparent procedure known in law. If the persons

who are employed through a contractor, and have come to work,

are given equal benefit and status as a regular employee, it would

amount to giving premium and sanction to a process which is

totally arbitrary as there is no mode prescribed in any contract as

to how the contractor would employ or choose the persons who

are to be sent, except for the basic qualification, i.e., knowledge in

the field for which they are required. The judgment/ order relied

upon by learned counsel for the appellant aptly covers the field in the

present case. The judgment cited by learned senior counsel for the

respondents is basically different on facts for the reason that there the

contractual employment was directly by the principal and in that

background contractual workers have been regularized.

(emphasis added)

21) Thus, in its judgment in the Municipal Council, Nandyal

Municipality, the Apex Court has drawn distinction between the

employees who were directly employed by the employer and workers

engaged through the contractor. The Apex Court has held that even if the

workers have worked for a considerable time on contract basis, in

absence of employer-employee relationship, the principle of payment of

wages in the minimum of pay scale cannot be extended to contract

workers. Thus, the judgment of the Apex Court in the Municipal Council,

Nandyal Municipality, does seem to suggest that the principle of equal

pay for equal work and payment of wages in the minimum of pay scale

cannot be made applicable where workers are engaged through a

contractor.

Page No. 17 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

22) However, it appears that in Municipal Council, Nandyal

Municipality, the prayer was for regularization since the employees were

continued for a long time by change of contractors. The High Court had

granted not just the wages in time scale of pay but also the annual

increments, which is clear from the opening part of the judgment, which

reads thus:

2. The present appeals arise out of a common order dated 23.08.2018

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by which the appellant has

been directed to grant minimum time scale of pay to 1the respondents

and also to add annual grade increments as and when they fell due from

time to time.

3. The appellant had engaged the respondents not directly, but through

a third-party contractor starting from the year 1994. However, upon the

change of contractors also, they continued to perform their duties and

work for the appellant. They approached the A.P. Administrative

Tribunal, Hyderabad1 seeking regularization and for payment of the

minimum of the scale of that post which was given to the regular

employees. The Tribunal ruled against them and they approached the

High Court. The High Court vide the impugned order has reversed the

order of the Tribunal and has directed the appellant in the terms as

indicated above.

23) Also, the Apex Court, though set aside the order of the High

Court directing payment of wages in the minimum of pay-scale and

increments, ultimately directed consideration of cases of casual workers

for regularization by issuing following directions, with the caveat that

the same shall not be treated as precedent:

Having passed the order, we feel that sometimes justice is required to

be tempered with mercy as human factors cannot be totally lost sight

of. In such view of the matter, we would require the appellant to look

into whether the jobs which were being done by the respondents, in the

background that they have not been disengaged or returned to the

contractor on the ground of being unsatisfactory, having uninterrupted

service under the appellant for decades can be regularized on posts,

Page No. 18 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

which prima facie appears to be perpetual in nature. We make it clear

that this direction is limited for the purposes of the present case only as

it has been passed in the special facts and circumstances of the present

case and shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. We

expect the appellant to take a compassionate and sympathetic view in

the matter.

24) Thus, the judgment in Municipal Council, Nandyal

Municipality is rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case. Also, the Apex Court did not have an occasion to consider

applicability of Rules made under CLRA Act which required payment of

same wages. In the present case, Petitioner is registered under CLRA Act

and has been issued a license to engage contract workers. The grant of

such license is subject to a condition under Rule 25 (2)(iv)(b) to pay same

wages to the contract workers as are paid to the regular employees when

contract workers perform same work. Thus, there is a statutory duty to

pay equal wages to the contract workers. Under the provisions of CLRA

Act if the contractor fails to pay wages payable under Act or the Rules to

its workers, it becomes the responsibility of the principal employer to

pay the same. In my view, therefore, there is no warrant for interference

in the direction made by the Tribunal for payment of equal pay for equal

work.

25) However, it needs to be clarified here that this Court is

upholding the Awards for payment of wages in the minimum of pay

scales only on account of establishment of similarity in works in the

peculiar facts of the present case. The present case involves a peculiar

circumstance where the Petitioner is unable to recruit regular employees

and is forced to recruit contract workers to perform jobs of regular

Page No. 19 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

employees. The judgment therefore cannot be read to mean as if laying

down an abstract proposition that every worker of a contractor would

always be entitled to payment of wages in the minimum of pay scales.

The direction of the Industrial Court is upheld mainly in the light of

provisions of Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Rules.

26) The Tribunal has directed payment of difference of wages

from May 2016/December 2016 till the time the members of the

Respondent-Union remain engaged on contract basis. It is however, seen

that the demand for payment of wages in the minimum of the pay scale

was made vide notice dated 5 April 2017. In pursuance of the said

demand, two References appear to have been made by the Additional

Commissioner of Labour. Reference (IT) No. 12 of 2018 was made by

order dated 16 March 2018 in respect of 49 workmen whereas Reference

(IT) No. 16 of 2020 was made by order dated 18 March 2020 in respect of

40 workmen. The Tribunal has however directed payment of difference of

wages from May 2016/December 2016. There is absolutely no basis for

seeking wages in minimum of pay scale from May 2016/December 2016.

It is also seen that Reference (IT) No. 16 of 2020 was made after

considerable delay. In such circumstances directing Petitioner to pay

difference of wages since May 2016 would put substantial financial

burden on the Petitioner. It is well settled position, that though payment

of less salary or wages is a continuous cause of action, limitation would

apply to the relief of payment of arrears. The law in this regard is well

settled by the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs.

Tarsem Singh

4

.

4

(2008) 8 SCC 648

Page No. 20 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

27) In my view, therefore, it would be appropriate to restrict the

arrears from the date of which References were made to the Industrial

Tribunal. Accordingly, the difference of wages needs to be paid from 16

March 2018 to the members of Respondent-Union in Reference (IT) No.

12 of 2018 and the same needs to paid w.e.f 18 March 2020 to the

members of Respondent-Union in Reference (IT) No. 16 of 2020. To this

limited extent, some modification in the impugned Awards would be apt.

28) Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

(i)The impugned Awards are upheld to the extent of

declaration made by the Industrial Tribunal for payment of

wages to the members of Respondent-Union in the

minimum of pay scale (at the lowest grade in the regular

pay scale) as that of permanent employees of the

Petitioner.

(ii)However, direction for payment of difference of wages

from December 2016 in case Reference (IT) No. 12 of 2018

and from May 2016 in case of Reference (IT) No. 16 of 2020

is modified by directing that the difference of wages shall

be payable to the members of Respondent-Union forming

part of Reference (IT) No. 12 of 2018 w.e.f. 16 March 2018

and to the members of Respondent-Union forming the part

of Reference (IT) No. 16 of 2020 w.e.f. 18 March 2020.

Page No. 21 of 22

21 JULY 2026

Renuka WP 3170 of 2025

(iii)The difference of wages shall be payable only till the

time members of the Respondent remain/remained to be

employed by the contractors with the Petitioner.

29) With the above directions, both the Petitions are partly

allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

30) After the judgment is pronounced the learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner prays for stay of the judgment for a period of

4 weeks. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 opposes for

stay of the judgment. Considering the reasons recorded in the judgment,

I deem it appropriate not to grant stay as requested. The request for stay

is accordingly rejected.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 22 of 22

21 JULY 2026