Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1144 (MP)

M. N. SINGH v. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS

2007-10-29

ABHAY M.NAIK

body2007
Judgment Abhay M. Naik, J. ( 1. ) This petition has been preferred to challenge the impugned order cum-notice dated 3.4.2007 contained in Annexure P/3 whereby the contractors are required to make payment to his employees of labour charges for the period with effect from 1.4.07 by account payee cheques. ( 2. ) Petitioner is a contractor who was awarded work contract by the respondents. Copy of the agreement is on record as Annexure P/1. Copy of the terms and conditions of the contract is stated to be contained in Annexure P/2. Contract is in respect of District Anooppur which is a scheduled and tribal area as declared by the Honble President of India. Respondent no. 3 being senior labour officer (Administration S.E.C.L.) issued an order- cum- notice dated 3.4.2007 with direction to contractors of S.E.C.L. to pay the wages by account payee cheques. It is stated in the petition that the condition of payment of wages by account payee cheques was not stipulated either in the agreement contained in Annexure P/1 or in the terms and conditions contained in Annexure P/2. Thus, the respondent no. 3 is stated to have exceeded his power which has been challenged on account of being unreasonable and unjustified. It is further stated that most of the labourers are illiterate and destitute. They need wages, virtually, everyday to meet out the ends for the purpose of survival. Accordingly, every contractor is required to make payment daily of the daily wages irrespective of clearance of bills. It is very impractical to ask the daily wages labourers to open the bank account and collect the wages through bank because the labourers need the wages virtually day- today. It is further pleaded that for opening a bank account, identification of the proposed account holder is required. Petitioner being the contractor would be required to identify the labourers and in case of any kind of fraud on the part of labourers, the petitioner may be held guilty of various offences under law. Further, the bank in the absence of satisfactory material for identification may refuse to open the account. This would also cause harassment to the labourers who would then be not entitled to seek encashment of the cheques. Moreover, for opening of the account, the petitioner will have to deposit minimum amount for the operation of the bank account. Further, the bank in the absence of satisfactory material for identification may refuse to open the account. This would also cause harassment to the labourers who would then be not entitled to seek encashment of the cheques. Moreover, for opening of the account, the petitioner will have to deposit minimum amount for the operation of the bank account. Thus, it is stated in the writ petition that the impugned order marked as Annexure P/3 is in violation of principles of natural justice because the respondents are required to adopt the procedure which is not prescribed by law as well as contract. Looking to the conditions of labourers it would be unreasonable to require contractor to make payment of wages by account payee cheques. Doctrine of promissory estoppel has also been sought to be invoked. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order marked as Annexure P/3 may be quashed on account of being illegal and unreasonable. ( 3. ) Respondents submitted a joint return. Preliminary objection has been raised that clause 12 of the contract provides for settlement of dispute by Engineer-in- charge within 30 days which is an alternative and efficacious remedy and accordingly, the petition is liable to dismissal. It has been further stated that respondents have given contract to the petitioner. Respondent has received number of complaints from the workers that the contractor was not paying wages due to them and the accounts were manipulated. So, a policy decision was taken that payment to workers be given through banks account payee cheques. It is further averred in the return that the petitioner/contractor was not making proper payment to the workers. ( 4. ) Clauses 31.1, 31.2, 31.3 are reproduced below on account of being relevant. "31.1 The contractor shall pay to his employees salary and wages as per law of the land applicable to the workmen of the colliery/washery where he is working under this contract. 31.2 The contractor shall make payment to his employees at the place (s) specified by the General Manager/Project Officer and in the presence of Companys representative authorized by General Manager/Project Officer who shall duly witness all payments by the contractor to his employees. For this purpose the contractor shall notify to the General Manager/Project officer the wage period (s) day/date and time of payment. 31.3. For this purpose the contractor shall notify to the General Manager/Project officer the wage period (s) day/date and time of payment. 31.3. The contractor shall prepare the wage sheet for his employees in duplicate, a copy of which shall be regularly submitted to the Project Officer." ( 5. ) Accordingly, it is stated in the return that payment of wages of employees of Coal Mines are made through the Bank. Under the terms of contract the contractor is also liable to make payment to the employees of their salary as per law applicable to the workmen of the colliery. Accordingly, the contractor has rightly been directed to make payment through account payee cheques and the writ petition is liable to dismissal. ( 6. ) Learned counsel for the parties made their submissions in support of their respective pleas which have been duly considered by this court. ( 7. ) Clause 12 at page 56 of the writ petition provides a forum for settlement of dispute in following manner:-. "It is incumbent upon the contractor to avoid litigation and disputes during the course of execution. However, if such disputes take place between the contractor and the department, effort shall be made first to settle the dispute at company level. The contractor should make request in writing to the Engineer- in-charge for settlement of such disputes/claims within 30 (thirty) days of arising of the cause of dispute/claim, failing which no disputes/claims of the contractor shall be entertained by the company." Effect of this provision would be considered after taking into consideration the objection of the petitioner. ( 8. ) Referring to the following condition, it is contended that verification of the disbursement of wages to the labourers/workmen is sufficient and the payment cannot be directed to made compulsorily by account payee cheques. "The bills of contractor shall be accompanied by an attested copy of wages sheet with a certificate given on the wages sheet by authorized official witnessing the payment of wages to labourers/workmen engaged by the contractor for the subject work to the effect that the payment indicated in the prescribed column of the wages sheet has been disbursed to the labourers/workmen in their presence." ( 9. ) Judicial review in the matter of policy decision came up for consideration before Honble Supreme Court AIR 2002 SC 350 BALCO Employees Union (Regd) Vs. Union of India and others. ) Judicial review in the matter of policy decision came up for consideration before Honble Supreme Court AIR 2002 SC 350 BALCO Employees Union (Regd) Vs. Union of India and others. "The courts have consistently refrained from interfering with economic decisions as it has been recognised that economic expediencies lack adjudicative disposition and unless the economic decision, based on economic expediencies, is demonstrated to be so violative of constitutional or legal limits on power or so abhorrent to reason, that the courts would decline to interfere. In matters relating to economic issues, the government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within limits of authority. There is no case made out by the petitioner that the decision to disinvest in BALCO is in any way capricious, arbitrary, illegal or uninformed. Even though the workers may have interest in the manner in which the company is conducting its business, inasmuch as its policy decision may have an impact on the workers rights, nevertheless, it is an incidence of service for an employee to accept a decision of the employer which has been honestly taken and which is not contrary to law." ( 10. ) Object of clause 31.1 to 31.3 quoted hereinabove, is to ensure the payment to the labourers/workmen. It is stated on oath that SECL is making payment to its employees through the bank. If payment is directed to be made to the labourers or workmen by similar mode, there would not occur any illegality or injustice. It is further liable to be noted that labourers/workmen have not approached this court. It is the contractor who submitted the present petition who by stretch of no imagination can be treated as an aggrieved person by virtue of Annexure P/3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to make out any illegality and / or breach of any statutory provision. Moreover, clause 12 at page 56 of the writ petition provides for settlement of dispute. It clearly lays down that it is incumbent upon the contractor to avoid litigation and he should make request in writing to the Engineer-in -charge for settlement of disputes/claims within 30 days. ( 11. Moreover, clause 12 at page 56 of the writ petition provides for settlement of dispute. It clearly lays down that it is incumbent upon the contractor to avoid litigation and he should make request in writing to the Engineer-in -charge for settlement of disputes/claims within 30 days. ( 11. ) Resultantly, I do not find any substance in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed summarily with liberty to the petitioner to approach Engineer- in-charge in accordance with clause 12, if, so advised. No order as to costs.