Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22.2.95 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C. O. 122 (W) of 1993 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. An appeal was preferred from the said judgment and a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 28.2.96 referred the matter to an Arbitration. By another order dated 8.4.96 another Division Bench appointed Sri D. R. Parekh, a senior member of the Bar at Port Blair to act as an Arbitrator. A special leave application was filed by the Food Corporation of India against the said orders and by a judgment dated 4.8 97, the Supreme Court, inter alia, held that such a course could not have been taken by this Court in view of the fact that there did not exist any arbitration clause, and hence remitted the matter to this Court for disposal of the appeal merits.
(2.) The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The appellant No. 1 is a firm, of which appellant No. 2 is the Manager. Tenders were invited by the Food Corporation of India for appointment of clearing and transport contractor at Port Blair. The petitioners participated therein and their to was accepted on or about 9.1.92. The appellants contend that the respondents issued a notification purported to be in terms of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, as a result where minimum wages of daily labourers were increased from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 27/. By a letter dated 23.11.92, the appellants made a representation to the Senior Regional Manager praying for revision of the rate indicated in the tender. The said representation was made prior to issuance of formal work order. The appellants have further contended that rates of others had revised and on that ground various representations were made. As there was no response to the said representation on the part of the respondent corporation, a notice demanding justice was made on 17.7.93. A writ petition was filed and by an order dated 3.8 93, N. K. Mitra, J, directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the appellants. By an order dated 13.9,93 the respondent No. 2 rejected the said representation. The said order is contained in annexure 'F' to the writ application. A writ petition was filed thereafter. By reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.2.95, a learned single Judge of this Court relying on or on the basis of a stipulation in the notice inviting tender that once a tender is submitted shall be deemed that the party has fully acquainted himself with size, location, ports, godown etc. vis-a-vis loading/unloading, handling and clearance points at Port Blair and he shall not entitled to any compensation arising out of any discrepancy in size and location of ports, godown found later on as also that the respondent corporation would be under no legal company to entertain the claims beyond the terms of the tender and the rates, disposed of the writ application with liberty to the appellants to file a suit.
(3.) Mr. Biplab Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised a short question in support of appeal. Learned counsel contends that keeping in view the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, it was incumbent upon the respondent corporation to accede to the request of the appeal as regards revision of rates.;