Disposed

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd, v. the The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Feb 2024WP/3370/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor challenged deduction of 1% labour cess from RA bills without corresponding provision in the estimates. Court disposed of the petition in terms of an earlier order dated 20.09.2023 in W.P.No.16156 of 2020 and batch: respondents to verify estimates; deduct cess only if included therein.

What did the court decide?

Writ disposed of per order dated 20.09.2023 in W.P.No.16156 of 2020 and batch; respondents to verify bills and recover/deduct 1% labour cess only if included in estimates; no costs.

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd, Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3370 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd, A Company incorporated under 'the Indian Companies Act 1913, Having its Regd. Office at Construction House5, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400 001 And Project Office at D.No. 6-4-23, Ram Nagar, Ananthapuramu - 515 001 Represented by its Project Manager and Power of Attorney Holder Mr. A K Johari

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, AP Secretariat Velagapudi

¶12

Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶13

The Engineer-in-Chief, , RWS and Sanitation, A.P. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (APRWSSP), Vasudha Shelters 3'^FIoor C Block, Near LIC Colony, Saipuram Colony, Gollapudi, Vijayawada- 521 225.

¶14

The Chief Engineer-ll, RWS and Sanitation, A.P Rural Water Supply and

¶15

Sanitation (APRWSSP), Vasudha Shelters 3rd Floor C Block Near LIC Colony, Saipuram Colony, Gollapudi, Vijayawada-521 225.

¶16

The Superintending Engineer, RWS and Sanitation, A.P. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (APRWSSP), Circle, Kakinada,^{EastGodavariDist.}

¶17

?TST-The Executive Engineer, RWS and S. Division, Kakinada,^EastGodavari

¶18

/i. vV A, M f, h- V A •' ^ ir?. •2 4? J-

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order declaring the action of Respondent No. 5 in deducting 1 percent labour^cessfromthe RA Bills of the Petitioner in violation of the terms of agreement, DO Note No.4763/PES.F8(A1)/98-4 dated 28.02.2008, Memo No.636/Reforms-A1 /2008 dated 08-06-2011 and Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 and the Rules as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of, principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents not to deduct the labour cess from the bills payable to the petitioner without adding the same to the RA bills at the first instance as required in terms of the Memo No.636/Reforms-A1/2008 dated 08-06-2011 and further consequently direct the Respondents to refund the monies wrongfully and illegally recovered from the RA Bills No. 18 to 28 of the Petitioner.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to deduct the 1% labour cess from the RA bills of the Petitioner unless it is added in the gross work done value in respect of agreement. No. 79/ 2013-14, dated 23-01-2014 to CPWS Scheme to Kothapeta and Ravulapalem Mandals in East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above said writ petition.

¶23

-If

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: ■ su'REen SETHNA BARIA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent

¶26

No.1: SRI VEDULA VENKATA NARAYANA

¶27

RAO, AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ rural development

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent

¶29

No.2 to 5: SRI G. VENKATA REDDY,

¶30

SC FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ

¶31

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.337Q OF .onon

¶33

The Indian Hume Pine Co T tH a incorporated under the Indian companies Act"igTs" Office at Const^ction S;use_5 Nat^ D.No.6-4-23, Ram f ^anthapuramu - 515 001, rep. by its Mr A “ey Holder

¶34

•.. Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Prmcipal Secretaiy, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur district and four others.

¶37

... Respondents

¶38

Counsel for the petitioner •• Sri Rajvinder Singh Ahluwalia Counsel for respondents : GP for Panchayat Raj and Sri G.Venkata Reddy, Standing Counsel

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.5 in deducting 1% labour cess from the RA bills of the petitioner in violation of the terms of agreement, UO Note No.4763/PES.F8(A1)/98-4, dated 28.02.2008, Memo

¶41

Page 2 of 5

¶42

SRS,J W.P.No.3370/2020

¶43

No.636/Reforms- Al/2008 dated 08.06.2011 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶44

Heard Sri Rajvinder Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vedula Venkata Narayana Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-company entered into agreement No.79/2013-14 dated 23.01.2014 for water supply scheme from Kothapeta^and Ravulapalem Mandals. He would also submit that the work was completed on 01.03.2019. He would also submit that upto RA Bill Nos.l to 17, respondents did not deduct 1% of labour cess. However, from RA BiU No. 18 onwards, respondents started deducting 1% labour cess. He would also submit that the labour cess is not included in the contract.

¶46

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other hand would submit that 1% labour cess IS including in the contract value in the original estimate in Part-II of the agreement (LS Provisions).

¶47

In Para No.6 of the counter-affidavit, it was stated as follows:

¶48

Page 3 of 5

¶49

SRS,J W.P.No.3370/2020

¶50

In reply to P^a No.l2 of the affidavit, it is admitted^thatthe educted the s^e from petitioners payments upto RA Bill Nos.17 But subsequent to this bill so as to implement the Government (Finance Department) vide Jh'S'th^^ NO.48022.238.DMU-WRII/2017,. dated 29.06^20FZ S^nS.re?hT responsibility of the contractor and T provision is made in the estimate for labour ?u instructions from the Government Provision for labour cess was deleted in the final working estimate and was approved by respondent No.3 on 14 02 2020 As such, m RA BiU NO.30 (pre final Bill), the total amount of labour cess for Rs.51,50,111/- was deducted l^m the petitioner payment but no amount is added to the value of work

¶51

As seen from the pleadings, it is the specific case of the petitioner that 1% labour cess is not included in the work estimate prepared by the respondents. The counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent is not clear as to 1% labour cess is included or not.

¶52

In W.P.No. 16156 of 2020 and batch learned single judge^of this court considered the aspect of recoveiy of 1% labour cess and disposed of writ petitions on 20.09.2023. The order in the writ petition squarely apply to the facts of this case.

¶53

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 20.09.2023 in W.P.No. 16156 of 2020 and Batch with the following directions.

¶54

Page 4 of 5 SRS,J W.P.No.3370/2020

¶55

The respondents shall verify the bills of the petitioner and if the corresponding amount is included in the estimates, the respondents can deduct the amount as prescribed at the rate of 1% towards labour cess;

¶56

On verification, if the respondents found that the corresponding amount is not included in the estimates, the respondents shall not take steps to deduct the amount/recover the amount from the petitioner towards labour cess. 3) No costs.

¶57

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shall

¶58

stand dismissed.

¶59

To,

¶60

SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// / lECTION OFFICER

¶61

Panchayat Raj and Rural District ap becretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur

¶62

Sanitation (APRWSSP)^ Vasudha^sSers’ Supply and colony. Saipuranr Colony,''iX^df'Cy^wLa^SaJ

¶63

Sanitation (APRWSSpfvasudha^lhSters’^iTFf'^'^^p^R]*®'^^Supplyand Colony. Saipuram Colo^V Go«ap:drvt;iwal52r225"'°"'’

¶64

1^ u- Water

¶65

Suppfyrd""s‘aSn1X?S^V?^s"prSir^ir Kakinada, East-Godavari Dist.

¶66

1. The Executive Engineer, RWS District. and S Division. Kakinada, East Godavari

¶67

One CC to SRI SHIREEN SETHNA BARIA Advocate High^{CourtOfAndhra} Pradesh [OPUC]

¶68

Two CCS to SRI VEDULA VENKATA NARAYANA RAO, AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶69

Two CCs to SRI G. VENKATA REDDY, SC FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, High Court of Andhra Pradesh {OUT]

¶70

Two C.D Copies

MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3370 of 2020

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd, v. the The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd, v. the The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manne Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bagadhi Tavudu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vara Dora babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Gunasekhar Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Alle Prabha Nagi Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Ravikumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh