JUDGEMENT
M.M.Kumar, J. -
(1.) This is defendant's petition
preferred under Seetion 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for brevity the Code)
challenging the view taken by the
lower Appellate Court for granting interim order of stay
on an application filed by the
plaintiff-respondent under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code.
Accordingly the defendant-
petitioners have been restrained from deducting 20% of
the amount on account of
Employees Provident Fund Scheme in respect of the
labour employed by the plaintiff-
respondent from the bills submitted by him.
(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the
instant petition are that the
plaintiff-respondent filed a civil suit for permanent
injunction asserting that he was
appointed as a contractor by the defendant-petitioners
for handling and transportation of
foodgrains at food storage depot Bhucho Mandi on 13/1/1990.
He commenced the business
on 19/1/1990. According to the terms of the contract the
plaintiff-respondent was to supply
labour to the defendant-respondent at a short notice for
loading and unloading besides
labour for transportation of foodgrains and its allied material
in and around their godowns.
It was asserted that by the very nature of business the
plaintiff-respondent had not employed
any permanent labour which was to be supplied to the
defendant-petitioners at a short
notice. The job undertaken by the plaintiff-respondent is
asserted to be seasonal one and the
labour so engaged did not ever work for more than 120 days
in a year. On the basis of
aforesaid assertions plaintiff-respondent has claimed that
no deduction to the tune of 20%
of the amount from the bill submitted by him after execution
of the contract in respect of
Employees State Provident Fund Scheme was legally permissible
without his consent. It
was also pleaded that there is no agreement between the parties
for the deduction of 20%
of the bill amount against the said scheme. Alongwith the
suit an application for grant of ad
interim injunction during the pendency of the suit was filed.
(3.) The defendant-petitioners contested the suit and the
application. It was asserted that
the plaintiff-respondent himself undertook in tender form
to get the bills deducted to the
extent of 20% towards Employees State Provident Fund
Scheme for the benefit of the
employees, therefore, he could not wriggle out of its promise
and the Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to issue any injunction against the statutory
provisions. The learned Trial Court
declined the injunction by placing reliance on Clause
VII(f) of the tender which is duly
signed by the plaintiff-respondent. The typed Clause VIII(f) of
the tender specifically provided for 20% deduction on account
of Employees State Provident Fund Scheme. The view of the learned
Trial Court is discernible from Para 6 of the order and the same reads
as under:
"6. While the applicant felt content by producing copy of telegram dated
13.1.1990 and letter dated 19/1/1990 vide which he was appointed as
contractor and he took the assignment, the respondent have produced copy
of tender himself submitted by the applicant. The learned Counsel, for the
respondents rightly submitted that according to terms of this contract, every
tenderer whose tender was accepted by the Corporation was required
immediately to obtain a licence from the prescribed Licensing Authority in
terms of Contract Labour (R & A) Rules, 1971 before entering upon any
work under the contract. My attention has been invited to Clause VII(f) of
the copy of tender each page whereof is signed by the applicant. At page 8
of the tender, the following term has been prominently typed under the
signatures of the applicant "SRM reserves the right to withhold 20% of the
amount from the bills of the HTC for any financial liabilities under the
contract. The amount so deducted will only be refunded/adjusted when
HTC produces proof for fulfilling contractual obligations as stipulated in
different labour Acts." This terms has of course been added in typewriting
whereas the rest of the tender form is printed but it bears the signatures of
the applicant and this clause clearly shows that the applicant agreed to
withholding of 20% amount of the bill by the Corporation towards financial
liabilities under the Labour Laws and if the Contractor satisfied the
Corporation regarding the fulfillment of the contractual obligations under
Labour Laws, the said amount be refunded to him.";
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.