M.R. Shah, J. - (1.) Delay condoned. Leave granted.
(2.) Both these appeals which, as such, can be said to be cross appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 1168 of 2017, filed by the original appellants - Food Corporation of India and others.
(3.) The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under: By judgment and order dated 23.06.1998, the Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition No. 1491 of 1997 filed by the contract casual labourers supplied by an earlier contractor for the Bikna Depot directed that the contract casual labourers would be entitled to payment of wages equivalent to Class IV employees. The appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India (for short 'FCI') came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 16.07.1998. The judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 16.07.1998 was challenged by the FCI before this Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 6064-6065 of 1998. That on 16.12.1999 after the earlier contract period came to an end, the appellant - FCI floated tender for appointment of Handling and Transport Contractor for the Bikna Depot. The respondent - contractor submitted his tender in which he quoted 471% above the schedule of rates fixed in the tender. Appendix VIII of the tender provided the schedule of rates for the contract and printed rates were provided on all items. The tenderer was required to quote rates above the schedule rates provided in the contract. Item No. 24 was for supply of casual labour. That the aforesaid Civil Appeals arising out of special leave petitions were pending before this Court so far as Item No. 24 which was for supply of casual labour and therefore it was stated in the tender that "relevant rate of wages is to be paid and such rate shall abide by the decision of pending SLP as filed by FCI in the Hon'ble Supreme Court". That by judgment and order dated 28.09.2000, this Court dismissed the aforesaid Civil Appeal Nos. 6064-6065 of 1998 upholding the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 16.07.1998. That vide communication dated 17.01.2000, tender of the respondent was accepted and he was appointed as Handling and Transport Contractor for a period of two years at the negotiated rate of 471% ASOR (above the schedule rates). That the original contract was meant for a period of two years, i.e., up to 16.01.2002. That after the original contract was over, the respondent-contractor submitted a bill dated 19.07.2002 3 claiming ASOR of 471% on the amount paid to the contract casual labourers. In the meantime, one contempt petition was filed before the High Court alleging non-compliance of the earlier judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, confirmed up to this Court. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 04.04.2003 convicted the officers of the FCI for contempt of court and sentenced them to undergo three months imprisonment and fine for violation of the orders for non-payment to the contract casual labour. The order passed by the High Court in the contempt petition was the subject matter before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003. This Court stayed the further proceedings before the High Court. That the demand of the contractor claiming ASOR of 471% on the amount paid to the contract casual labourers was rejected by the FCI. The contractor filed Writ Petition No. 7790 of 2004 seeking, inter alia, additional amount for payment of the contract casual labourers. By judgment and order dated 14.01.2010, this Court disposed of Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003 and directed the FCI to make payment of wages to the workmen in Scale-II, as revised from time to time, and also directed that the arrears and wages should be directly paid to the workmen and legal representatives of the workers without involving any contractor or other agency. It was also directed that once the payments were made, the sentence awarded would stand set aside. That thereafter contempt petition Nos. 56-57 of 2011 were filed by the contract casual labourers alleging non-compliance of order dated 14.01.2010 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003 passed by this Court. The same came to be dismissed by this Court by order dated 04.07.2011. That in Writ Petition No. 7790 of 2004 filed by the contractor, the High Court vide order dated 08.12.2011 directed the CMD of FCI to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the grievance raised by the contractor. The CMD of FCI passed a detailed speaking order dated 15.03.2012 holding, inter alia, that the contractor was not entitled to claim raised by him regarding 471% of ASOR on the wages actually paid to the casual labour because the claim was contrary to the contract between the parties. The contractor amended the aforesaid petition. In the aforesaid amended writ petition No. 7790 of 2004, the contractor prayed for the following reliefs: "b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and their men and agents to make payment A.S.O.R as per the bill submitted by the petitioner in terms of Clause 24 of the tender at the rate of 471% A.S.O.R. above the Schedule Rate immediately being Annexure "P-4" and "P-11" to this writ petition and further commanding the respondents to delete the liability as fixed up upon the petitioner towards payment of E.P.F., Administrative Charges and Income Tax liability by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bankura vide his letter dated 24.04.2004 and the statement annexed thereto being Annexure "P-10" to the writ petition." 3.1. That the learned Single Judge of the High Court, by judgment and order dated 12.04.2016, allowed the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 7790 of 2004 and quashed and set aside the speaking order dated 15.03.2012 passed by the CMD, FCI and directed the CMD to verify the bill and make payment of the unpaid dues with liberty to deduct the payment already made. 3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the FCI preferred appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court being MAT No. 1151 of 2016/F.M.A. 1168 of 2017. That by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has disposed of the appeal with the following directions: "(a) the appellant will furnish details to the Chairman of how the Supreme Court judgment and order dated 14th January, 2010 was applied to fix the differential daily 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. (b) the Chairman shall also determine the exact amount of wages that was payable, applying the above Supreme Court judgment the amount that was actually paid by the appellant directly to the labourers and the wages outstanding, if any. According to the said Supreme Court judgment, such outstanding wages is to be paid directly to the workers/their heirs. In fact, the said judgment of the Supreme Court dated 14th January, 2010 has left open other issues to be determined. One such issue is the amount representing the profit receivable by the respondent. The Chairman will determine the profit to be earned by the respondent out of this contract, in accordance with law. He shall make the determination with intelligible reasons within four months of communication of this order, upon hearing the parties. If any amount is determined by the Chairman to be payable to the respondent the same shall be released by the appellant to him within 8 weeks of making the determination." 3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, both the FCI as well as the contractor have preferred the present appeals.;