- (1.) THE petitioners question the rationale of two of the conditions set as part of the eligibility criteria for fresh enlistment and renewal of license of electrical contractors under the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. The petitioners claim that the notice published on December 2, 2008 that has subsequently been modified on January 29, 2009 is arbitrary and unreasonable in so far as it mandates that contractors produce provident fund and employees' state insurance registration certificates to be considered for enlistment or renewal. The first petitioner claims to be a registered society and is an association of contractors who have been working under the West Bengal Electricity Board now renamed as the West Bengal Electricity Distribution Company (hereinafter referred to as the company ). The other petitioners are members of the first petitioner who are either enlisted with the company or aspiring to be so.
(2.) THE challenge in the petition is concentrated against the following two conditions, to be met by contractors who apply to be entered on the list of eligible contractors for the company to possibly allot work that may arise at a future date, which were included in the notice published in several newspapers in the beginning of December 2008: " (7) PF Code No. alongwith copy of PF Registration Certificate. " (8) ESI Registration No. with Registration Certificate. " during the pendency of the petition a subsequent notice was issued that contains the following two clauses which, in effect, modify clauses 7 and 8 of the original notice: " (1) Applicants (Electrical Contractors) must have PF Registration Code in the name of their own firm. (2) Contractors' employees not covered under ESI Scheme due to non-extension of benefit under the said scheme where WBSEDCL work-sites are situated, benefit under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 must be applicable to them. "
(3.) THE petitioners insist that these are unfair conditions that have been sought to be imposed by the company in an unconscionable attempt to insulate the company against the rigours of beneficial legislation aimed at protecting workers. According to the petitioners it is a pure question of law and the facts pleaded by the company in its affidavit are irrelevant in the matter of assessment of the legality of the two conditions as modified. The petitioners argue that whether it is under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the PF Act) or under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act) since the company is to be the principal employer qua the workers brought in by the contractors, the company has to take responsibility for the workers under both statutes and the overwhelming motive in setting the two impugned conditions is to shirk a duty enjoined on the company by statute.;