Equal pay for equal work can be computed under Section 33C(2), with principal employer liability on contractor default.

Where contract labour performs the same or similar work as directly employed workmen, the statutory equal-wages entitlement under the Contract Labour framework can be worked out in a computation proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, because the Labour Court may determine a pre-existing right and quantify its monetary value, though it cannot decide a disputed industrial claim requiring reference under Section 10. On the facts stated, similarity of work was not disputed, so no separate adjudication was needed. The principal employer can also be made liable where the contractor defaults, because the contract labour statute makes the contractor primarily responsible but preserves the principal employer's liability for short payment or non-payment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was maintainable for computation of wages claimed by contract labour on the basis of equal pay for equal work. (ii) Whether the claim for equal wages could be enforced against the principal employer.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was maintainable for computation of wages claimed by contract labour on the basis of equal pay for equal work.

Analysis: The Labour Court under Section 33C(2) can determine the existence of a pre-existing right and compute its monetary value, but it cannot adjudicate a disputed industrial claim requiring reference under Section 10. Here, the relevant rule under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 provided that where contract labour performs the same or similar work as directly employed workmen, wage rates and service conditions shall be the same. Since the similarity of work was not disputed, no separate adjudication by the Chief Labour Commissioner was necessary, and the benefit could be worked out in a computation proceeding.

Conclusion: The application under Section 33C(2) was maintainable and the claim for equal wages could be computed by the Labour Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for equal wages could be enforced against the principal employer.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 makes the contractor primarily responsible for wage payment, but in case of default or short payment the principal employer is liable to make payment and recover the amount from the contractor. The relationship of direct employment does not defeat the statutory liability where the principal employer is the real employer for wage purposes under the Act. On that footing, the contract labour was entitled to recover the wages from the principal employer.

Conclusion: The claim for equal wages was maintainable against the principal employer.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the workmen's claim for equal wages was computable under Section 33C(2) and enforceable against the principal employer under the contract labour law framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contract labour performs the same or similar work as directly employed workmen, the statutory right to equal wages may be enforced in computation proceedings under Section 33C(2), and the principal employer bears liability to pay if the contractor defaults.

---