The Gauhati Mazdoor Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010146412021

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:12119

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4793/2021

¶6

THE GAUHATI MAZDOOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT K.C. SEN ROAD, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI781008 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI DILIP KUMAR YADAV, S/O LATE RAJA RAM YADAV, R/O K.C. SEN ROAD, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

¶9

2:THE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781011

¶10

3:THE ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY GUWAHATI-781001

¶11

4:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY LUMDING-782447 ASSAM

¶12

5:THE CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY GUWAHATI-78100

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MS T J SAHEWALLA,MR H K SARMA,MS. S. TODI,MR. M SAHEWALLA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, RAILWAY, MR. B K DAS (R-1,2,3,4,5)

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶17

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶18

05.09.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Railways for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

¶20

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authority to release the payment of the outstanding bill of Rs. 14,10,495.94/- on account of work of parcel handling contract at Guwahati and Kamakhya Railway Stations for the period from 01.04.2018 till 09.10.2018.

¶21

3. Briefly put, the petitioner- The Gauhati Mazdoor Co-operative Society Ltd. is a Labour Co-operative Society which deals in contracts with the North East Frontier Railway for the work of loading & unloading of parcels booked with North East Frontier Railway. The basic work of the petitioner is to load the booked parcel in passenger trains after carrying the same from the parcel godown of the Railway to the trains with the help of thelas and labourers. Similarly, parcel coming from other stations have to be unloaded on the platforms and carried to the Godown and the same being regular nature of work

¶22

Page No.# 3/6

¶23

carried throughout 24 hours a day. Pursuant to the tender for the work of parcel handling contract at Guwahati and Kamakhya Station for the period of 2 (two) years, the petitioner was awarded the work.

¶24

4. When the period for work order was about to expire, the petitioner vide letter dated 25.03.2018, intimated the respondent No. 3, i.e. Assistant Commercial Manager, that the work order is about to expire and till the next tender floated is finalized, the petitioner is ready and willing to do the work at the existing rates and terms and conditions.

¶25

5. It is contended that when the contract period got over, the petitioner was not restrained from working, rather visited the concerned persons with regard to issuance of work order, to which the Assistant Commercial Manager verbally intimated that the petitioner to continue the work and the work order will be issued. Subsequently, the petitioner continued the work from 01.04.2018. Thereafter, vide work order dated 09.10.2018, the work was awarded for a period of 2 (two) years with effect from 10.10.2018 and also to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as security deposit, which the petitioner has deposited.

¶26

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that although, there was no formal work order for the period from 01.04.2018 till 09.10.2018, since the petitioner has continued the work, the bills for the said period was submitted on being duly certified by the Chief Parcel Supervisor, N.F. Railway, Guwahati for an amount of Rs. 14,10,495.94/-. However, the respondents have failed to pay the said admitted amount for the work of parcel handling contract at Guwahati and Kamakhya Railway Stations for the period from 01.04.2018 till 09.10.2018.

¶27

Page No.# 4/6

¶28

7. Mr. B. K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Railways for the respondents, submits that since no work order was issued to the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2018 to 09.10.2018, the Chief Parcel Superintendent, North East Frontier Railway, Guwahati has no authority to certify any bill submitted by the petitioner. The then Chief Parcel Superintendent, NFR, Guwahati has superannuated from the Railway service on 31.10.2020 and therefore no action could be taken against him.

¶29

8. He submits that no payment with regard to any work done or not done can be made without the issuance of work order and no work order was issued to the petitioner and no valid records are available, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any payment. He submits that no verbal intimation was ever issued to the petitioner to continue the work as alleged by the petitioner. The respondent authorities have not issued any communication either verbally or written to the petitioner to continue the work after 31.03.2018 and no work order was issued for the period with effect from 01.04.2018 till 09.10.2018. Merely verifying the bill would not mean that the respondents have accepted the amount. As for processing the bills, there must be a work order covering the said period and for the said period, the leaseholders for Parcel Vans had themselves carried out the work by engaging their private labours. The respondent authorities has clearly intimated the petitioner by communication dated 03.05.2021 rejecting the bill of the petitioner as the work was carried out without obtaining the work order for the period from 01.04.2018 to 09.10.2018. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

9. Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that

¶31

Page No.# 5/6

¶32

although no work order was issued to the petitioner, the fact remains that the petitioner has carried out the works for the period 01.04.2018 till 09.10.2018 and the payment of outstanding bill of Rs. 14,10,495.94/- for the said work for the period with effect from 01.04.2018 till 09.10.2018 cannot be denied to the petitioner.

¶33

10. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶34

11. The claim for payment of outstanding bill would be entertained under writ jurisdiction only if the claim of outstanding bill is admitted. If the claim amount is disputed, same cannot be adjudicated invoking the power of writ jurisdiction. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner has intimated to the Assistant Commercial Manager, N.F. Railway, Guwahati vide letter dated 25.03.2018, stating that since the contract work for handling of parcel at Guwahati and Kamakhya Railway Stations for the period of two months would expire on 31.03.2018, the petitioner is agreeable to work at the existing rates and terms and condition till the next tender is finalized. The subsequent tender was finalized and work order was issued on 09.10.2018. Admittedly, there is no work order for the period from 01.04.2018 to 09.10.2018. Nevertheless, it appears that the petitioner has carried out the work of handling contract at Guwahati and Kamakhya Railway Stations for the period from 01.04.2018 till 09.10.2018. It is also admitted position that vide communication dated 03.05.2021, the respondent authorities has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the work was carried out without obtaining work order with effect from 01.04.2018 to 09.10.2018.

¶35

Page No.# 6/6

¶36

12. Having considered that the petitioner appears to have carried out the work, although no work order was issued for the period from 01.04.2018 till 09.10.2018 and also considering that the bill amounting to Rs. 14,10,495.94/has been certified by the authority of the North East Frontier Railway, in my considered view, the amount claimed by the petitioner for the work for said period with effect from 01.04.2018 till 09.10.2018 cannot be denied. Thus, the respondent authorities are liable to verify the claim of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner, in fact, has carried out the work for the period with effect from 01.04.2018 till 09.10.2018, the same need be paid to the petitioner.

¶37

13. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to verify as to whether the petitioner has carried out the work for handling contract at Guwahati and Kamakhya Railway Stations in actuality for the period from 01.04.2018 till 09.10.2018. In the event if it is found that the petitioner has carried out the work, even if there was no work order, same shall be paid to the petitioner. The exercise, so directed hereinabove, shall be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶38

14. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms above.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

The Gauhati Mazdoor Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Gauhati Mazdoor Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jakia Rabha Vs the Inidian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Ashini Sarkar Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rina Kalita and Anr.

Md. Kamruzaman Khan and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Anr. Vs Shri Mohan Teron

M/S Scr Caterers and Dry Fruit Juices Stalls Welfare Association and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.