The Director General Cipet vs. Clean And Clean

Court:Supreme Court of India
Judge:Registrar
Case Status:Pending
Order Date:23 Sept 2024
CNR:SCIN010375662024

AI Summary

Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order

Order Issued After Hearing

Purpose:

First Hearing

Listed On:

23 Sept 2024

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Download True Copy

Order Text

ITEM NO.6

COURT NO.5

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 37566/2024

(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 25-04-2023 in WP(C) No. 20330/2021 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack)

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CIPET

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

M/S CLEAN AND CLEAN & ORS.

Respondent $(s)$

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.211537/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.211541/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date: 23-09-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Srivastava, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Delay condoned. 1.

Heard Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned ASG appearing for the $2.$ <pre>petitioner(s).</pre>

3. The counsel would submit that the respondent No. 1 who was engaged as the cleaning agency in the Establishment, was registered Signal Length of Er the Odisha Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1956.<br>Digitally signed by Annual Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Act $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{10.35}{10.35}$ $\frac{1$ Therefore, the principal employer should not be burdened to Act.

$\mathbf{1}$

pay wages to those employees of the Agency (respondent No. 1), under the Minimum Wages Act. In support of such contention, Mr. Chahar cites the ratio in Lingegowd Detective & Security Chamber (P) Ltd. v. Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 180. It is also pointed out that this will have a cascading effect all across many Establishments.

3. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.

(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR