Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (C) & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: The Calcutta High Court disposed of BSNL’s writ petition challenging an order dated 27 October 2025 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Asansol. Under the impugned direction, if the contractor, M/S General Security Information Service, failed to make the payment/deposit within 60 days, BSNL as principal employer was required to pay the actual deducted amount of ₹8,51,508 plus one and a half times the principal amount as compensation, aggregating to ₹21,28,770.
BSNL contended that no further payment could be required from it because it had already paid the contractor. In its supplementary affidavit, BSNL stated that the contractor had raised 208 invoices aggregating to ₹3,32,02,602, including GST of ₹50,64,803, and that payments aggregating to ₹2,57,26,718.53 had already been released. It further stated that the GST component had been withheld because the contractor had not filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and the amount was not reflected in BSNL’s GSTR-2A, resulting in inability to take input tax credit for FY 2022-23.
The petitioner relied upon Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 417. The Court noted that the authority had directed the principal employer to make payment if the contractor failed to do so. It further recorded BSNL’s contention that payment had already been made to the contractor, who appeared to have failed to discharge his liability under the agreement.
The High Court held that BSNL, being the principal employer, was at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law against the contractor for compliance with the payment order. On the facts, the Court found that the impugned order required no interference at that stage. WPA 13892 of 2026 was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
Cases Discussed
- Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 417 (Supreme Court) — Relied upon by the petitioner in support of its prayer for setting aside the impugned order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an order dated 27th October, 2025, passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Asansol, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the direction of the authority concerned, which is as follows :
“In case contractor M/S General Security Information Service failed to make the payment/deposit within 60(sixty) days then Principal Employer, BSNL will pay the actual deducted amount of Rs.8,51,508/(Rupees eight lakhs fifty-one thousand five hundred and eight only) plus one and a half times of the principal amount as compensation to the workers. The total amount of Rs.21,28,770/- (Rupees twenty-one lakhs twenty eight thousand seven hundred and seventy only) can be deposited within another 60(sixty) days by way of A/C Payee Demand Draft in favour of the “Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol” payable at Asansol for disbursement to the same to concerned workers. The amount so paid can be recovered from the Contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor. The Action Taken Report on this order must be submitted by all the parties to the undersigned within four months from the issue of this order.”
2. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that the question of making further payment does not arise in view of the fact that the petitioner has already paid the total dues to the contractor herein. There is nothing outstanding in the present case.
3. The petitioner had annexed a statement of accounts showing the amount paid to the contractor/private respondent but admittedly there was no document to substantiate the argument that the same had been paid to the contractor, on record.
4. As directed the petitioner then by way of filing a supplementary affidavit, stated as follows:
“The Respondent No. 2 has raised total 208 invoices on various dates from 06/03/2023 to 18/03/2023 of total amounting to Rs. 3,32,02,602/- (Three Crores Thirty-Two Lacs Two Thousand Six Hundred Two Only) including GST amount of Rs. 50,64,803/- (Fifty Lacs Sixty-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Three Only). The Petitioner further states that against the aforementioned invoices the Petitioner released payments to the Respondent No. 2 on 03.05.2023, 09.06.2023 and 19.04.2024 amounting to Rs.12,13,488.76/-, Rs.1,24,10,683.33/- and Rs.1,21,02,546.44/- respectively. Thus, an aggregate amount of Rs.2,57,26,718.53/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty-Seven Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Eighteen and Paise Fifty-Three only) has already been paid to the Respondent No.2. Out of this Rs 2,21,78,400.98 was paid towards the 208 invoices pertaining to Asansol BA. The remaining amount of Rs 35,48,317.55 relates to other units. The GST amount is withheld by the Petitioner because as per GST Portal, it is found that the Respondent No. 2 had not filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and the same is not being reflected in the GSTR-2A of BSNL till date. Due to the non-filing of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B by the Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner is unable to take Input Credit of GST for FY 2022-23 which is lapsed & leading to a loss of Rs 50,64,803/- to petitioner.”
5. The petitioner thus prays for setting aside of the impugned order. The petitioner has annexed documents in support of his contention and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417.
6. On hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that the respondent authority concerned has held that in case the contractor fails to make payment, the principal employer will have to pay the said amount.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that being the principal employer, it has already made payment, which the contractor has received, but it appears has failed to discharge his liability as per agreement between the principal employer and the contractor.
8. The principal employer being the petitioner herein, is at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law against the contractor for compliance of the said order for payment.
9. Considering the said facts this court is of the view that the impugned order requires no interference at this stage and is accordingly disposed of.
10. WPA 13892 of 2026 stands disposed of.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on an usual undertaking.
