Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) By Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Appellants were the defendants in Money Suit No. 82 of 1987 instituted by the plaintiff/respondent, who has also preferred crossobjection being aggrieved by the findings rendered in the same impugned judgment.
(3.) The case of the parties as borne out from the pleadings before learned court, inter alia, are as under: Plaintiff was appointed as Adhoc contractor for the period 197682 by the respondent/appellantF.C.I to undertake handling and transportation of consignment of different commodities received at the Railway Station Ranchi and Hatia which included three operations of unloading of the goods from the railway wagons, loading the same on trucks provided by the plaintiff and its transportation to the point of destination. The job required the contractor to deposit 50% of the total security money with the concerned authority of defendant no. 1 either in cash or through its Bank Demand Draft and remaining 50% to be realized by way of deduction @ 5% from the running account bill of the contractor. On completion of the work of contract, he was required to submit his final bills for payment. Plaintiff claims to have deposited the required security money through different sums in different years ranging from the year 19761985 and the remainder was duly deducted from his running account bills. But, according to him, he had not received a single farthing despite the repeated requests and reminders. He protested through letter dated 23rd December, 1980/8th January, 1981 to the District Manger of Food Corporation of India. He also took the plea that substantial amount of security deposits and outstanding bills for the work done have remained unpaid. He had to pay the minimum wages to the workers @ 60 paise per bag for loading and unloading with variable dearness allowance as per the rates prescribed by the appropriate authorities of the Govt. of Bihar in terms of the clause of agreement whereas only 24 paise per bag for loading and unloading was paid to him, as a result, he suffered a loss of Rs. 5,31,453/, which the defendants are obliged to pay.;