Calcutta HC sets aside award applying central minimum wages to contract labour; West Bengal is the appropriate government

Court: High Court at Calcutta
Date of judgment: 30 September 2026
Case: WPA/11917/2025
Parties: BRIDGE AND ROOF COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs UNION OF OF INDIA AND ORS.
Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Outcome: Dismissed

Summary

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the award of 13 November 2024 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in case no. 39 of 2022, which held that the contractors' employees working for Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. are entitled to minimum wages at the rate fixed by the Central Government. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that, because the workers are engaged through contractors for work carried out within West Bengal, the State Government is the appropriate government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the State Minimum Wages Act therefore applies to them.

Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited awarded contracts to several contractors through tenders with a condition that minimum rates of wages be paid to the labourers. Bridge and Roof Contractors' Shramik Union raised an industrial dispute for the contract workers at the Howrah factory, demanding Rs 26,000 a month as minimum wages or, in the alternative, the minimum wages notified by the Central Government. On a reference made on 26 August 2022, the Tribunal found nothing on record to show that the minimum rate was Rs 26,000. In its award of 13 November 2024 in Reference No. 39 of 2022, it nevertheless allowed the reference in part, holding that the contractors' employees were entitled to the minimum wages fixed by the Central Government from time to time, and that the company was bound to pay its contractors at that rate for payment to those employees. The company challenged the award in a writ petition.

The question before the court

Is the Central Government or the State Government the 'appropriate government' for contract labour engaged through contractors at the company's Howrah factory?
Does the State minimum wages law, rather than the rate notified by the Central Government, apply to those workers?

What each side argued

The company argued that the award was perverse because the contractors were not impleaded or heard, and that it was passed ex parte against the company.
It argued that a dispute between a principal employer and contract labour is not an 'industrial dispute' under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that minimum wages are governed by the later and special Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
It argued that, following the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India v. National Union Waterfront Workers, the State Government is the appropriate government, and that the award also altered the terms of the tender.
Respondent No. 2 supported the award, saying contract workers are entitled to equal pay for equal work under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, and that, the company being a central public sector undertaking, the Central Government's minimum wage notification applied.

The court's decision

The Court noted that one of the company's arguments appeared justified: if a contractor whose business is confined to one State had to pay the central minimum wage, he would find it difficult to supply labour to other establishments where the State rate applies, and workers moved between such establishments would be aggrieved by the lower rate, leading to unrest.

The Court then set out the Supreme Court's decision in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1. That decision held that Central Government companies cannot be equated with the Central Government, that the Central Government is the appropriate government for an establishment only where the industry is carried on by or under its authority, and that otherwise the government of the State in which the establishment is situated is the appropriate government. In paragraph 127 the Supreme Court confirmed the Calcutta High Court's holding that the West Bengal Government is the appropriate government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The Court also reproduced Nashik Workers Union v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (2016) 6 SCC 224. From these decisions it appeared to the Court that the Supreme Court has held the West Bengal Government to be the appropriate government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

Turning to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Court noted that under Section 2(b) the Central Government is the appropriate government only for scheduled employment carried on by or under its authority, a railway administration, a mine, oilfield or major port, or a corporation established by a Central Act, and the State Government for any other scheduled employment. The workers here are employed through contractors, who admittedly supply contract labour at various establishments within a State, and they were engaged within West Bengal for work carried out there. The West Bengal Government is therefore the appropriate government in respect of the company and the tenders given to the contractors, and the State Minimum Wages Act applies to the contract labour.

The Court set aside the award dated 13 November 2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in case no. 39 of 2022 as not being in accordance with law. WPA 11917 of 2025 was allowed, connected applications were disposed of and any interim order stood vacated. The judgment records, but does not separately rule on, the company's other objections, including those on non-joinder of the contractors and on the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Precedents referred to

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1
Nashik Workers Union v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (2016) 6 SCC 224

Provisions referred to

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Section 2(b))
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court at Calcutta. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Labour Law Minimum Wages Contract Labour Writ Jurisdiction

Related judgments

Telangana High Court ·18 Sep 2026 ·Anti-Defection ★ Editor's pick Landmark

Telangana HC sets aside Speaker's orders, declares MLA disqualified for contesting Lok Sabha polls on another party's ticket

The question: Was the Speaker's decision vitiated on the grounds of judicial review laid down in Kihoto Hollohan?

The Telangana High Court has set aside the Speaker's decisions in two disqualification petitions and declared that Danam Nagender stands disqualified as a Member of the Telangana Legislative Assembly from 23 April 2024, the date he filed his nomination as the candidate set up by the Indian National Congress (INC) for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from Secunderabad, despite having been elected on a Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) ticket. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, by a common order in Writ Petition Nos. 8409 and 8647 of 2026, held that the Speaker's contrary findings breached the constitutional mandate and were perverse. The Court declared the seat vacant. Mr. Nagender was elected from the 60-Khairatabad constituency in December 2023. On 23 April 2024 he filed his nomination for the Lok Sabha as an INC candidate, campaigned against the BRS candidate and lost. Disqualification Petition No. 1 of 2024 (Padi Kaushik Reddy) was filed on 18 March 2024, and Disqualification Petition No. 4 of 2024 (Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, a BJP member) on 1 July 2024, both seeking a declaration of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. On 31 July 2025 the Supreme Court directed the Speaker to decide within three months. The Speaker, sitting as a Tribunal, dismissed both petitions on 11 March 2026, and the petitioners came to the High Court.

Allowed WP/8647/2026

Telangana High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Property ★ Editor's pick

Telangana HC directs registration of a plot sale deed refused as unapproved layout, subject to regularisation charges

The question: Can a Sub-Registrar refuse to register a sale deed because the plot lies in an unapproved layout and no earlier registered document is shown?

The Telangana High Court has directed a Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed that he had refused to register because the plot lay in an unapproved layout. Justice Pulla Karthik relied on the common order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 16310 of 2019 and batch and on the Supreme Court judgment in K. Gopi, which say that a registering authority can refuse a document only on grounds found in the Registration Act, 1908 and is not concerned with the title of the person executing it. The order was passed on 29 September 2026 in a writ petition taken up for disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both sides. The petitioner, Peguda Narasimha, a 78-year-old retired employee, said he owns Plot No. 8, measuring 166 sq. yards, in Sai Nagar Colony, Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, under an Agreement of Sale dated 22 August 2026. On 7 September 2026 he presented a sale deed in favour of a purchaser to the Sub-Registrar, Kapra. The document was kept pending and then refused by an intimation dated 11 September 2026 under Section 71 of the Registration Act. The Sub-Registrar relied on a memo of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registrations and Stamps of 26 August 2020, under which new plots in unapproved layouts are not to be registered unless they were earlier acquired through valid registered documents or have been regularised. The Court's order comes with conditions: the petitioner must pay the charges due under G.O.Ms.No.28 of 20 February 2025 and comply with the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act, and the registering authority remains free to refuse the document on any other ground, which it must record.

Disposed of WP/32411/2026

Supreme Court ·28 Sep 2026 ·Service Law

Supreme Court: Bihar and Jharkhand must pay Rs 1 lakh each to daily-wage staff of five defunct corporations, with interest

The question: How should the remaining, untraced employees and legal heirs be dealt with, and can the exercise be closed?

The Supreme Court on 28 September 2026 settled the last three open issues in a long-running writ petition by the employees' federation of five defunct State-owned corporations of undivided Bihar. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta (judgment by Justice Mehta) directed the States of Bihar and Jharkhand to pay a one-time Rs 1,00,000 to each daily-wage employee or workman, to pay simple interest on delayed dues (12 per cent a year on provident fund dues and 6 per cent on salary and other dues), and to publish particulars of all employees and the status of their claims. It also closed the identification exercise, while giving untraced claimants 12 months to come forward. The Court stressed that these reliefs rest on the peculiar facts and are not a general rule. The case goes back to the reorganisation of Bihar under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, which created Jharkhand and raised questions about the dues and service claims of the employees of five inter-State corporations: the Bihar State Construction Corporation, the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation, the Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation, the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation and the Bihar State Panchayati Raj Financial Corporation. After years of litigation, including Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, the Court set up a Committee under Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, a retired Supreme Court judge. By an order of 29 May 2026 it accepted the Committee's Final Report of 30 April 2026 to the extent indicated, and left three issues open. In August 2026 the two States filed compliance affidavits. Of 2,274 verified employees and workmen, dues had been fully paid to 2,074, and about 200 cases remained pending because the claimants were untraceable or lacked documents. The three issues left open were: identification and verification of the remaining employees and heirs; the entitlement of daily-wage workmen and the heirs of the deceased to lump-sum compensation or other support; and the entitlement to, and rate of, interest on delayed salaries, retiral dues and provident fund amounts.

Disposed of W.P.(C) No. 932/2022