21.Insofar as the other objection raised by the contractors that it will have some repercussion in the accounting system of the contractors are concerned, that it is very flimsy reason, which would not detain this Court from going for this interim arrangement. If they want, for accounting purpose, the contractors, being the Assessees under Income Tax Act, can very well submit their accounts stating that, the wage due payable to the employees have been paid by the Labour Commissioner, pursuant to the orders of this Court and accordingly, they can submit their account. Therefore that cannot also be a plausible reason for this Court to accept against the proposed interim arrangement. 22.Insofar as the identification of employees are concerned, in the report dated 21.09.2020 the Labour Commissioner has pointed out that, at 26 various places, these verification work was done and in some of the places, like Madurai and Tuticorin, there was no support from the contractors as they have not come forward to submit the records for verification and identification and in such places, the Labour Commissioner seems to have either depended the list supplied by the employees Union or the BSNL. In the said report, the Labour Commissioner also has pointed out that, under Section 21(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, it is the duty on the part of the principal employer, in case the contractor employer fails to pay the due payable to the employees, to take the task in their hands to pay the employees directly. 23.Therefore, for the said purpose, every principal employer is expected to have the full details about the contract employees and therefore in this regard, the BSNL also cannot go back from furnishing the list of employees with details such as, name and identity of the employee, worked under which contractor, for which period he worked, the wage due as on date as well as the Bank details for the purpose of crediting the wage.
