Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has assailed a work order dated March 1, 2017 issued in favour of the respondent no. 6.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, an e-tender was floated for outsourcing of cleaning and housekeeping services at rural hospitals of Burdwan and Asansol by the Department of Health and Family Welfare. The petitioner had participated in such e-tender proceeding. He has referred to the various terms and conditions of the tender and has submitted that, the private respondent in whose favour the ultimate work order had been issued, did not fulfil the essential terms and conditions of the tender. He has submitted that, the private respondent does possess the requisite registration under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The private respondent did not employ 20 or more workers for the 12 months from the issuance of the tender. He has submitted that, the report and the summary of the acceptance of the technical bid of the private respondent were wrong. He has also referred to the application made under the Right of Information Act, 2005 and the reply given thereto. In particular, he has referred to the reply dated April 17, 2017 by the authorities. As the private respondent does not have the requisite qualification, he has submitted that, the work order issued in favour of the private respondent should be quashed.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that, his client has complied with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, in its entirety. The registration is required to be taken by the employer. Moreover, once the contract is entered into, his client will undertake the exercise of registration. There being no complaint from the employer as to nonregistration, the allegations made therein should not be countenanced.;