SAMRAT SECURITIES AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2003-9-115
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on September 10,2003

Samrat Securities And Intelligence Services Private Limited. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) BOTH the writ petitions having preferred against common Order No. 56, dated 28th March, 2003 and the respondents being same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE Managing Director, Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board, Pandra, Ranchi (for short Jharkhand Marketing Board) issued impugned office order No. 56/Ranchi, dated 28th March, 2003, whereby and whereunder, the 4th respondent was selected for the security job and it was ordered to execute agreement with the said respondent. According to the petitioners the 4th respondent being ineligible as per notice invited for Short Term Quotation, the decision to allot the security job to the 4th respondent is illegal. The case of the petitioners is that the Managing Director, Jharkhand Marketing Board issued advertisement in the daily Hindi Newspaper "HINDUSTAN" Ranchi Edition on 9th June, 2002 calling for Short Term Quotation for appointment of Security Agency and preparation of panel. The parties were asked to enclose documents and give certain information, such as (i) Certificate of incorporation with the Registrar of Companies; (ii) Documents relating to payment of minimum wages, as fixed by the Labour, 20/5/2014 Page 92 Dr.Bikrama Prasad Versus Coal India Ltd. Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi; (iii) Monthly salary and allowances of the Security Guards; (iv) Certificate of registration with the Employees State Insurance Corporation; (v) Recent renewal registration certificate issued by the Labour Department.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the rate quoted by the 4th respondent was such low that on the basis of such rate even minimum wages, as prescribed by the State Government cannot be paid to its employees. It was further pleaded that the 4th respondent having defalcated in depositing the Provident Fund amount of the security personnel, has been served with a notice under Section '7 -A of the Employees Provident Fund (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1952.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.