Case Details: GOCL Corporation Ltd. vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) [2026] 182 taxmann.com 132 (HC-Jharkhand)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sujit Narayan Prasad & Rajesh Kumar, JJ.
-
Indrajit Sinha & Ankit Vishal, Advs. for the Appellant.
-
Prashant Vidyarthi, Sr. Panel Counsel & Rohit Kumar, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the appellant company was awarded a contract by UCIL to excavate uranium ore. The appellant engaged contractual workers for said work. The Labour Enforcement Officer, Central, inspected the appellant company’s establishment and directed the appellant to report compliance regarding certain irregularities in the payment of minimum wages to contractual workers, alleging that the appellant had been paying less than the minimum wages as per the Government Notification.
Based on the inspection report, the Labour Enforcement Officer filed an application under section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, before the appropriate authority. The Appropriate authority passed an order directing the appellant to deposit an amount which included a different amount of wages and compensation to be paid in favour of labourers who had been engaged in the execution of work by the appellant company.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order. Against the said order, the appellant filed an instant appeal.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the appellant company could not dispute the work inspection report. Thus, it was not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appropriate authority, as also the order passed by the High Court.
The post HC Upholds Order Directing Payment of Minimum Wage Differential to Contract Workers appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
