Application under section 33 c 2

The contractor could have terminated the workers.

Dear All,

I hereby correct the data posted its about Section 33-C (2). The unoin has made us the party however the complaint u/s 33-C is against the contract itself.

Regards

Kindly consult your Labor law Consultant with full facts of the matter.

You may find the following useful.

Para 6 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of
BHEL Workers’ Association, Hardwar & Others v/s Union of India (1985-ILLJ-
428) to submit that no distinction could be made against contract
labour, who were entitled to the wages, holidays, hours of work, and
conditions of service as were applicable to workmen directly employed by
the principal employer for similar kind of work. They were also entitled for
recovery of their wages and their conditions of service in the same manner
as workers employed by the principal employer, under the appropriate
industrial and labour laws. Citing the Delhi High Court judgment in the
matter of Indian Airlines v/s Central Government Labour Court, New Delhi
& Others (1987-II-LLJ-512), it was stated that the workers employed by the
contractor also were entitled to claim wages due to them under Section
33C(2) of the I. D. Act.
In the light of the submissions made, the Court stated that two questions that
had arisen for its consideration were, one, whether the application made by
the contract labour was maintainable under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act,
and two, in case of the contractor failing to pay the difference of minimum
wage, whether the principal employer was liable or not.
The Court referred to Section 21 of the C. L. Act and stated that reading of
these provisions made it clear that there was dual obligation of the principal
employer. One, was to ensure payment of proper wages to the contractor
labour, and second, was in case where there was failure to make the payment
of wages, the principal employer was liable to make the payment. The Court
also emphasized that if the principal employer was statutorily liable to make
the payment to the contract labour, then the amounts due to them became the
statutory liability.
Further, the Court added, if the contract labour was entitled to recover the
wages from the principal employer, the question arose whether the contract
labour could make a claim under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act, and
pointed out that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court – cited above –
there was no distinction between contract labour and the workmen for the
purpose of claiming service benefits, and therefore, the contract labour could
not be denied the benefit which in law they were entitled to. Since the
directly employed workers could claim wages due to them under Section
33C(2) of the I. D. Act, the workers employed by the contractor were also
entitled to recover their wages under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act.

Dear Sir,

Is there any provision for relief if there is non compliance of section 33 B 2, or uptil what till the application for seeking approval can be made, in our case contractor has suspened the service of workers on 13.09.2011 with out paying them one month salary and also not made the application for seeking approval.

Pl advise seniors.