Contract:
Tender by appellant-Corporation for appointment of Handling and Transport contractor – As per the tender relevant rate of wages was to be as per the decision of pending case before Supreme Court – Corporation accepted the tender of the contractor at the negotiated rate of 471% ASOR (above the schedule rates) – On completion of contract, contractor claimed ASOR of 471% on the amount paid to the contract casual labourers – Demand rejected by the Corporation – Writ petition by Contractor seeking inter alia, additional amount for payment of contract casual labourers – Supreme Court, in the meantime, in the pending case directed the Corporation to make payment of wages to the workmen in Scale II, by its judgment dated 14.01.2010 – Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition of the Contractor and directed the Corporation to make payment – In appeal, Division Bench of High Court held that the contractor was not entitled to the wages to be paid to the casual labourers on 471% ASOR basis and the wages were to be paid at the rate specified in the order dated 14.1.2010 passed by Supreme Court – However, High Court finding that there was no clarity as to how the Corporation had applied the judgment dated 14.1.2010 to calculate the wages, referred the matter back to the Corporation to determine exact amount of wages – High Court also directed the Corporation to determine the profit earned by the contractor – Appeal to Supreme Court by the Contractor as well as the Corporation – Held: Division Bench of the High Court rightly held that the contractor was not entitled to the wages to be paid to the casual labourers on 471% ASOR basis and that the wages to be paid to the labourers was to be at the rate specified in the order dated 14.1.2010 – However, the direction of the Division Bench to determine the profit earned by the contractor is quashed – Remand of the matter to the Corporation shall be restricted to the determination of wages as per the order dated 14.01.2010. Partly allowing the appeals of the Corporation and dismissing that of the Contractor, the Court
HELD: 1. At the time when the contract between the FCI and the contractor was entered into, there was already a dispute pending with respect to the rate of wages to be paid to the casual labourers. Therefore, so far as Item No.24 for supply of casual labourers is concerned, it was provided that “relevant rate of wages is to be paid and such rate shall abide by the decision of pending SLP as filed by the FCI in the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. The dispute with respect to wages came to be finally settled/disposed of by this Court by its order dated 14.01.2010. Therefore, the casual labourers were entitled to the wages as per the final order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010, and as per the terms and conditions of the contract, more particularly with respect to Item No. 24, the wages were required to be paid as per the determination in the pending SLP. [Para 6] [1112-E-G]
2. With respect to supply of casual labourers at 471% ASOR, the contractor claimed between Rs.607.43 to Rs.1225.19 per day. The FCI determined and paid the wages as per the direction issued by this Court in the order dated 14.01.2010 ranging between Rs. 308.85 to 391.35 per day. The Chairman of the FCI rightly rejected the claim of the contractor, as the wages to the casual labourers were required to be determined and paid as per the order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010. Therefore, as such, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly observed and held that after this Court’s judgment and order dated 14.01.2010, the rate of wages payable to the labourers under the subject contract would be according to the rate specified in that judgment and not on 471% ASOR basis. Therefore, the contractor shall not be entitled to the wages to be paid to the casual labourers on 471% ASOR basis and the wages to be paid to the labourers would be at the rate specified in the order dated 14.01.2010. [Para 6.1] [1113-E; 1115-A-C]
3. However, the Division Bench of the High Court was of the opinion that there is no clarity how judgment and order dated 14.01.2010 has been applied by the FCI to calculate the wages of the casual labourers, therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has referred the matter back to the Chairman of the FCI to consider how the differential rate of casual labourers between Rs. 308.85/- per day and Rs.353.19/- per day between January and March, 2000 and October to December, 2001 respectively and the differential rate for the subsequent period up to July, 2004 has been determined and the Chairman is directed to determine the exact amount of wages that was payable, applying the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010. [Para 6.1] [1115-C-E]
4. So far as the direction issued by the Division Bench of the High Court directing the Chairman to determine the profit earned by the contractor out of his contract is concerned, the same is not sustainable at all. On bare reading of the order dated 14.01.2010 there does not appear to be left open other issues to be determined, as observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order. Under the circumstances, that part of the direction issued by the Division Bench directing the Chairman to determine the profit earned by the contractor deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Para 6, 6.2] [1115-F-H]
5. Remand to the Chairman of the FCI shall be restricted to the determination of the wages as per the judgment and order dated 14.01.2012 passed by this Court, more particularly as contained in paragraph a & b of the operative portion of the impugned order. However, that part of the direction issued by the Division Bench in the operative portion of the order by which the Chairman is directed to determine the profit earned by the contractor, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. [Para 7] [1116-D-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.