Disposed

M/S. Well Protect Manpower Services Private Limited v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Oct 2017W.P.(C)/7094/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Full Bench disposed of a reference question regarding tender bids and Provident Fund contributions. The court deemed the issue academic due to expired contract terms and raised statutory limits. Parties granted liberty to seek revival if the issue arises again.

What did the court decide?

Left it open to authorities to modify tender terms; liberty granted to parties to seek revival of the reference in future.

M/S. Well Protect Manpower Services Private… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~1 to 4.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7094/2014

¶4

M/S. WELL PROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja, Advocates.

¶5

Versus

¶6

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS .... Respondents Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC for Govt. of NCT of Delhi. + W.P.(C) 7134/2014 M/S. WELL PROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja, Advocates. Versus

¶8

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Satyakam, ASC for Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

¶9

W.P.(C) 8109/2014 M/S. WELL PROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. D K Sharma, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mittal, Mr. Kartikay Sharma, Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocates.

¶10

Versus NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Parvinder Chauhan with Mr. Vishal Chauhan and Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocates for NDMC. Mr. Rajesh Gogna and Ms. Vipra Bhardwaj,

¶11

Advocates for MIT2C.

¶12

+ W.P.(C) 8543/2014

¶13

GAURAV ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner Through: Through: Mr. D K Sharma, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mittal, Mr. Kartikay Sharma, Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocates.

¶14

versus

¶15

EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through :Mr. Pravesh Thakur, Advocate for Respondent no.1.

¶16

Mr. Rajesh Gogna and Ms. Vipra Bhardwaj, Advocates for MIT2C.

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶18

O R D E R % 13.10.2017

¶19

A Division Bench vide order dated 13^th January, 2016, doubting the correctness of decision in MIT2C Security and Facilities Private Limited versus Government of NCT & Others , 2013 (205) DLT 288, had made reference of the following question of law to the Full Bench:-

¶20

“Whether an employer quoting a rate inclusive of provident fund contribution that complies with the statutory requirement but is not based on the minimum wage can be said to have submitted a bid that is nonresponsive?”

¶21

The aforesaid question of law had arisen in the context of minimum wage in Delhi being Rs.8086/-, whereas the statutory requirement under the

¶22

Employees Provident Fund Act towards employer’s contribution was restricted to 13.61% on wage of Rs.6,500/- per month.

¶23

Counsel for the parties submit that the question raised has become of academic interest for two reasons. Firstly, the contract term has expired. Secondly, vide notification dated 22^nd August, 2014, figure of Rs.6,500/- in the Employees Provident Fund Act was increased to Rs.15,000/- with effect from 1^st September, 2014.

¶24

Counsel for the writ petitioners submit that there has been subsequent increase in minimum wage in Delhi too.

¶25

It is deemed appropriate to dispose of the reference:-

¶26

A. By leaving it open to the Government of NCT of Delhi as well as the municipal corporations to take note of the controversy and if deemed appropriate, amend and modify the terms and conditions of tender.

¶27

B. Granting liberty to the parties to, if question of law arises in future, seek revival of the present reference by moving an appropriate application.

¶28

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶29

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶30

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

¶31

OCTOBER 13, 2017/NA

M/S. Well Protect Manpower Services Private Limited v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Well Protect Manpower Services Private Limited v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldev Raj Vs Mgt.of Delhi Transport Corpn.

M/S Mgs Super Speciality Hospital Vs District Appropriate Authroity-Pndt / District Magistrate (West District)

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Vinod Kumar

Indian Hockey Federation Vs Indian Olympic Association and Ors.

Rajni Kant Mishra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manjit Singh Bali Vs Union of India

Mohd. Jahangir Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Karamveer Vs Union of India & Ors.

Tinna Rubber & Infrastructure Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Cit Vs Engineers India Ltd.

Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. Vs Wyeth Ltd.

M/S Well Protect Manpower Service Private Limited Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Gaurav Enterprises Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

UOI & Anr. Vs Central Administrative Tribunal