Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 77 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Dhrubendra Gopal Pani

2015-02-05

D.DASH

body2015
JUDGMENT The State of Orissa and its officer-in-charge of the Public Works Division (R & B), Baripada being the unsuccessful defendants have called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada in Money Suit No. 16 of 1995 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 as plaintiff in part. The respondent-plaintiff though had filed the cross-appeal challenging the denial of his claim as advanced in the plaint, during hearing the same is not pressed. 2.For the sake of convenience, clarity and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the Court below. The plaintiff has filed the suit for realization of Rs. 2,53,585/- from the defendants together with pendent-lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3.The plaintiff being a registered P.W.D. Contractor entered into an agreement with the defendants for construction of staff quarters of Forest Lodge at Lulung at the estimated cost of Rs. 5,66,966/-. The work was to be completed within a period of nine month. But for some reason not attributed to the plaintiff, the work could not be completed within the schedule period of time. So extension being prayed for, the same was granted. After that the final bill was prepared and the same was placed for being sanctioned for payment, when the dispute arose. The plaintiff ultimately claimed the above sum towards wage revision as also on account of price escalation etc. for the said work besides the interest. 4.The defendant contested the suit. They mainly challenge the claim on the ground that the extension having been granted the condition that no claim with regard to price escalation or on any other count would be allowed, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any further claim even the claim towards enhancement of minimum wages of the labourers engaged in the work as per Government notification under the statute. 5.The trial Court has rejected the claim towards the price escalation etc. However, it has granted the claim on account of enhancement minimum wages during the progress of work amounting to Rs. 77,703/-. 5.The trial Court has rejected the claim towards the price escalation etc. However, it has granted the claim on account of enhancement minimum wages during the progress of work amounting to Rs. 77,703/-. While allowing that claim on that head direction has been given for payment of interest at the rate of 10% with effect from the date of demand i.e. from 16.01.1994 to be paid within four months failing which interest @ 12% per annum would be levied from the date of decree till realization. 6.At the outset of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent has opened up that the respondent is no more pressing the cross-appeal which may accordingly be dismissed. A memo to that effect has also been filed. So now we are concerned with the appeal as regards the claim allowed on the head of the differential amount on account of increase in the minimum wages of labourers. 7. Learned counsel for the State challenges the said finding that it is not the entitlement of the plaintiff in view of the subsequent extension of the period of contract with specific conditions that no further claim whatsoever would be admissible with regard to the escalation charges and on any other head. 8.Learned counsel for the respondent relying upon the decision in case of State of Orissa vrs. Birat Chandra Dagara, AIR 1997 Orissa 142, submits that the finding rendered by the trial Court on issue no. 4 is un-assailable as the revision of the minimum wages has been made by the notification of the State in accordance with the provision of law when the State under legal obligation to revise after certain period. So the defendant cannot be denied of such claim which could never have been anticipated by the plaintiff either while entering into the agreement or while applying for the extension. 9.On such rival submission and in order to address the same, the specific defence of appellant be first stated. The revision of minimum wages for the labourers with effect from, 01.07.1991 is not denied. It is said that for te purpose of availing the claim, supplementary agreement was required to be put in place and that having not been done by the plaintiff, the entitlement does not stand for consideration. The revision of minimum wages for the labourers with effect from, 01.07.1991 is not denied. It is said that for te purpose of availing the claim, supplementary agreement was required to be put in place and that having not been done by the plaintiff, the entitlement does not stand for consideration. It is further stated that despite of notice (Ext.B), the plaintiff failed to produce necessary documents for the purpose which is mandated vide clause 32(b)(c) and (e) of the agreement, Ext. A casting a duty to maintain such accounts and records for verification. But then as per clause 34(a), the obligation in that regard is for a period of twelve months from the last date of entry of payment being made. The plaintiff has spoken that though payment registers were called for at the time of final bill, but then also he had no registers. The above version of the plaintiff is found to be truthful if one goes through the evidence of D.W. 1, that in the present case the final bill was prepared after much delay. So the plaintiff had the statutory obligation to pay the minimum wages at the enhanced rate or else to invite prosecution on his failure to do so. In similar cases of claim this Court has already held the State’s liability to pay the differential amount. In fact in case of Birat Chandra Dagara (supra) the Tribunal’s award on this head has been confirmed. Thus no such illegality or infirmity is noticed with the trial Court in awarding said claim with reasonable interest @ 10% per annum with the date of demand coming to Rs. 1,10,164/- In view of above, the finding of the trial Court on that such issue is hereby affirmed. However, so far as the interest pendente lite and future is concerned, when it appears that the trial Court without assigning any reason has gone to award 12% per annum, the same is hereby reduced to 10% per annum. The appellants are hereby directed to pay the decreetal amount of Rs. 1,10,164/- with pendente lite and future interest @10% per annum within three months hence failing which interest @ 18 % per annum would be payable with effect from the date of expiry of three months till payment. The appellants are hereby directed to pay the decreetal amount of Rs. 1,10,164/- with pendente lite and future interest @10% per annum within three months hence failing which interest @ 18 % per annum would be payable with effect from the date of expiry of three months till payment. 10.In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part with the modification regarding the pendente lite and future interest and further direction as stated above with costs throughout. The cross-appeal is dismissed without cost. Appeal allowed in part.