JUDGMENT : SANJIB BANERJEE, J. Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.03.2020 passed in W.P. No. 17160 of 2019 on the file of this Court. 1. The Southern Railway is in appeal against a portion of an order passed on a contractor’s writ petition against it. The directions are contained in paragraph 42 of the judgment and order impugned herein dated March 10, 2020. The appellant is not aggrieved by Clauses (a) and (b) of the directions. It is the third clause of the directions which is assailed. 2. Pursuant to a notice inviting tender, bids were made by several, including the writ petitioner firm, for undertaking the work of cleaning Chennai Park Railway Station for a period of three years. There were at least two other bidders. The writ petition was instituted upon the present appellants’ failure to accede to the contractor’s demand to meet the higher wage bill following the increase in minimum wages by a Government notification of January 19, 2017. The principal contention carried to the writ Court was that the first appellant herein, as the principal employer, was liable to bear the minimum wages of the employees deployed by the contractor and such position was also envisaged in the tender documents. Copious references are made to the schedules pertaining to the tender documents and the bid made on the basis of the four scheduled items. By the judgment and order impugned, the following directions were issued: “42. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms: (a) The petitioner is directed to furnish proof of payment of the enhanced minimum wages to the employees as per the notification dated 19.01.2017, apart from the wages already paid as per the amount quoted in Schedule-A, with material details and particulars, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (b) On receipt of such details and particulars, the Railways shall, on being satisfied with the said payment made by the petitioner to its employees, reimburse the said amount to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter. (c) It is made clear that the Railway is entitled to take the rebate offered by the petitioner namely 27% only under Schedule-B and Schedule-C rates and not under Schedule-A or D.” 3. (c) It is made clear that the Railway is entitled to take the rebate offered by the petitioner namely 27% only under Schedule-B and Schedule-C rates and not under Schedule-A or D.” 3. The appellants herein join issue as regards the third of the directions. According to the appellants, the writ petitioner had given a rebate of 27% on the total bid value which included both the minimum wages component and the GST on minimum wages. The appellants assert that if such was the bid of the writ petitioner, upon the minimum wages being enhanced and upon the principal employer being required to bear the enhanced GST component, the percentage of rebate cannot be altered as the rebate amount will operate on the enhanced minimum wages bill and the GST payable thereon. 4. On behalf of the writ petitioner, it is contended that once it is accepted that the principal employer has to foot the minimum wages bill, no deduction can be sought therefrom. It is the further submission on behalf of the respondents that a statutory charge cannot also invite any reduction and as such, the GST component payable on the minimum wages would not be subject to any reduction by way of rebate. 5. Provisions of the Minimum Wages Act are sought to be cited in such regard. However, it does not appear that such provisions have any relevance in the present context. It is the bid of the writ petitioner which has to be noticed. The bid was made in respect of four scheduled items. Schedule A pertained to the Cost of Labourers; Schedule B pertained to the Cost of Consumables; Schedule C pertained to the Rental for Vehicles for Garbage Removal and Schedule D pertained to Service Tax @ 15%. Indeed, the financial offer of the writ petitioner may be seen in its entirety so that there may not be any room for equivocation. 6. In respect of Schedule A, the bid rate was at par with what was indicated in the tender documents, implying thereby that no reduction was offered by the contractor. Schedule B, pertaining to Cost of Consumables, was also quoted at par. Schedule C relating to Rental for Vehicles, was quoted at 0.05% below the price indicated in the tender documents. Schedule D was quoted at par. Schedule B, pertaining to Cost of Consumables, was also quoted at par. Schedule C relating to Rental for Vehicles, was quoted at 0.05% below the price indicated in the tender documents. Schedule D was quoted at par. Indeed, no reduction could have been granted in respect of either Schedule A or in respect of Schedule D since these were actual to be paid on account of minimum wages and the statutory impost thereon. 7. It is evident from the offer that an amount of Rs. 19,43,625/- was bid in respect of Schedule A, an amount of Rs. 3,45,360/- was bid in respect of Schedule B, an amount of Rs. 8,20,389.60 was bid in respect of Schedule C and an amount of Rs. 7,53,976/- was bid in respect of Schedule D, which included Service Tax, EPF, ESI and Bonus. 8. The gross bid value was indicated in the bid document to be Rs. 38,63,350.60. As is arithmetically evident, the gross bid value of Rs. 38,63,350.60 was the sum of the quantum bid in respect of each of the Schedules. In other words, Rs. 19,43,625/- on account of Schedule A was added to Rs. 3,45,360/- on account of Schedule B, Rs. 8,20,389.60 was added on account of Schedule C and Rs. 7,53,976/- was added on account of Schedule D to arrive at the gross figure of Rs. 38,63,350.60. 9. So as to obtain the job, the writ petitioning contractor offered a rebate of 27% on the total value and arrived at a net bid value of Rs. 28,20,245.94. Again, it is arithmetically obvious that the rebate that was offered operated on the gross bid value to arrive at the net bid value. 10. It may be of some relevance to record that the two other bidders, Siva Hygienic Chemicals and Archana Enterprises, did not offer any rebate on the gross value and the respective net offered values were Rs. 32,35,694.92 and Rs. 38,83,197.25. As a consequence of the writ petitioner offering a rebate of 27% on the gross bid value, its reduced net offered value stood at Rs. 28,20,245.94 and it was easily identified as a L1 and obtained the contract. 11. It was not for the appellants herein to look a gift horse in the mouth. The appellants had to identify L1 and award the contract to L1, subject to being satisfied that L1 was capable of performing the work. 28,20,245.94 and it was easily identified as a L1 and obtained the contract. 11. It was not for the appellants herein to look a gift horse in the mouth. The appellants had to identify L1 and award the contract to L1, subject to being satisfied that L1 was capable of performing the work. It was not the appellants’ concern as to how L1 met its expenses or costs in undertaking the work once L1 had made a conscious bid. 12. There is no doubt that neither the contractor nor the employer could have deducted from the minimum wages bill or from the GST imposed on the minimum wages since minimum wages are statutorily payable and the tax thereon is also a statutory obligation that requires to be discharged. The net effect is that while considering the offer of rebate that had been offered, the writ petitioner must be seen to have offered the rebate from that part of the expenditure that was permissible. Indeed, in respect of the individual heads pertaining to Schedule A and Schedule D, the writ petitioner’s bid did not offer any concession. The concession, thus, could only have come from the costs to be incurred under Schedules B and C. The rebate offered was on the gross value of the bid and the bid, since it was accepted, has to be honoured. By the judgment and order impugned, a distinction has been made in the impugned part of the judgment in Clause (c) between the several entries in the Schedules, which was uncalled for. The writ petitioner had offered a rebate on the gross value of the bid and it is the enhanced value now after the increase in the wage bill and the GST payable that will determine the rebate that has to be offered. If that implies that it reduces the income of the writ petitioner on account of Schedules B and C, so be it. The writ petitioner had made a bid with its eyes wide open and the writ petitioner has to live with it. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order in so far as it permits the rebate offered by the writ petitioner to be confined only to Schedule B and Schedule C rates is set aside. The writ petitioner had made a bid with its eyes wide open and the writ petitioner has to live with it. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order in so far as it permits the rebate offered by the writ petitioner to be confined only to Schedule B and Schedule C rates is set aside. The total value, including the enhanced amount on account of minimum wages and the enhanced amount on account of Service Tax, EPF, ESI and Bonus, ought to be taken into account and the rebate provided on the entire quantum rather than being confined to Schedules B and C only. Only such a course would be in tune with the bid made by the writ petitioning contractor since it did not confine the extent of its rebate in its original bid to Schedules B and C but allowed the bid on the total amount by taking into account the amounts covered by Schedules A and D, too. 14. The appeal, W.A. No. 865 of 2020, is allowed to the extent indicated. The interim application, C.M.P. No. 10823 of 2020, is closed. 15. The appellants should ensure that the enhanced amounts on the basis of actual in terms of the order impugned as modified by the present order are tendered to the contractor within a period of six weeks from date or from the date of furnishing the particulars, whichever is later; failing which the contractor will be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 8% p.a. simple on the amount already expended. Since it appears that this order operates harshly on the contractor, particularly since the contractor may not have conceived of the present situation, the appellants will do well to release the contractor’s bills in time so as to lighten the contractor’s hardship. 15. There will be no order as to costs.