Dismissed

Mr Mohammad Aslam v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2024WP/11549/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a successful bidder in an e-procurement tender, filed a writ petition challenging orders refusing payment of outstanding wages and reliever charges. The High Court held that the dispute involved questions of fact requiring oral evidence regarding tender terms and contract performance. Consequently, the writ court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter on documents alone.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr Mohammad Aslam Vs State of Karnataka — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:22506 WP No. 11549 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.11549 OF 2017 (L-MW)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. MOHAMMAD ASLAM PROPRIETOR, M/S TARGET DETECTIVE & SECURITY FORCE, NO.30-31, MUSLIM HOSTEL COMPLEX, CHETHANA HOTEL ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577006.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GOVINDARAJU K. JOISA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560009.

¶16

CHIGATERI DISTRICT HOSPITAL DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577006 REPRESENTED BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22506 WP No. 11549 of 2017

¶18

THE LABOUR INSPECTOR 2^ND CIRCLE, DAVANAGERE HARIHARA TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUILDING, NEAR BSNL, DAVANAGERE-577006.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZILLADALITHA BHAVAN, DAVANAGERE-577006.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING (a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2016 BEARING NO.CHI.JI.AA/DAA/GNL(3)NONCLINICAL/63/14-15 (ANNEXURE-G) (b) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2016 BEARING NO.CHI.JI.AA/DAA/GNL(3)NON CLINICAL/63/14-15 (ANNEXURE-A) (c) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO PAY THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS.34,62,069.53/- FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE-2015 TO JAN-2017 FROM THE THIRD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH INTEREST (ANNEXURE-R) AND FURTHER DIRECT THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO PAY THE RELIEVERS CHARGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT. (d) GRANT SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (E) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS ON ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE THIRD RESPONDENT FOR PAY THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RELIEVERS CHARGES OF RS.58,86,373.87/- FOR THE PERIOD OF FEB-2017 TO MARCH 2018 ALONG WITH INTEREST AS PER ANNEXURE-U IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:22506 WP No. 11549 of 2017

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:

¶28

“(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 23/02/2016 bearing No.Chi.Ji.Aa/Daa/GNL(3)/ Non Clinical/63/14-15 (ANNEXURE-G)

¶29

(b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 05/03/2016 bearing No.Chi.Ji.Aa/Daa/GNL(3)/ Non Clinical/63/2015-16 (ANNEXURE- A)

¶30

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the third respondent to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.34,62,069.53/- for the period of June-2015 to Jan-2017 from the third respondent along with interest (ANNEXURE-R) and further direct the third respondent to pay the relievers charge in accordance with provisions of the Minimum Wages act.

¶31

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the third respondent to pay the outstanding amount of relievers charges of Rs.58,86,373.87/- for the period of Feb-2017 to March 2018 along with interest as per Annexure-U in accordance with provisions of the minimum wages Act.”

¶32

2. Petitioner was a successful bidder in the E-

¶33

procurement tender notification dated 26.12.2014 for the

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:22506 WP No. 11549 of 2017

¶35

year 2015-16, for providing outsourced staff (non-clinical services) for the respondent–hospital, the petitioner being the eligible candidate was issued with the approval order by respondent No.2 on 16.06.2015. Pursuant to which an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 on 19.06.2015.

¶36

The grievance of the petitioner is the action on

¶37

the part of respondent No.2 refusing to pay the reliever charges to weekly off to the outsourced staff provided by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 filed statement of objections, interalia contending that the work order was issued to the petitioner fixing the monthly payment of Rs.11,18,875/- including service tax with effect from 23.06.2015 to 31.03.2016, but the petitioner has submitted the bill over and above the work order and on scrutinizing the same by the respondent, it was found that the claim made is in excess to the tune of Rs.5,25,129.81/- and the petitioner has included the reliever charges by calculating watchman reliever charges

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22506 WP No. 11549 of 2017

¶39

and non clinical staff reliever charges. It is stated that the respondent having found that the petitioner’s claim was not genuine and satisfactory, the impugned endorsement has been issued to the petitioner and sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶40

Heard Sri Vigneshwar S. Shastry, learned senior

¶41

counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Bopanna, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶42

Learned Senior counsel would urge the

¶43

following grounds:

¶44

(i) That the impugned endorsement issued is contrary to the provisions of Section 24(1) and (4) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (“Act” for

¶45

short) and the workman is entitled for a day week off and compulsorily to pay wages on weekly off.

¶46

(ii) The endorsement directing the petitioner to refund the excess payment made to the

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:22506 WP No. 11549 of 2017

¶48

petitioner is without considering the reply made by the petitioner.

¶49

(iii) Inviting the attention of this Court to the tender notification and the agreement entered into between petitioner and respondent No.2, it is contended that it was agreed upon to pay the wages that they are entitled to and as per the rates to be quoted.

¶50

Per contra, learned AGA would submit that the work order was only issued for certain sum, while the petitioner has submitted bill for a sum above the estimated charges as laid in the agreement. It is stated that the petitioner cannot make additional claim as the petitioner has accepted the tender by entering into an agreement. It is specifically contended that since disputed questions of fact arise in the writ petition, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶51

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner participated in the E-procurement tender and was a

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:22506 WP No. 11549 of 2017

¶53

successful bidder. As per the tender notification, the petitioner was to provide outsourced staff (non-clinical staff), respondent No.2 issued approval order to the petitioner to provide outsourced non-clinical staff to respondent No.3.

¶54

Tender notification terms indicate at clause

¶55

No.27-annexure B, which reads as under:

¶56

“according to the labour rules all personals provided

¶57

by the agency are entitled for one weekly off, the rates to be quoted accordingly.”

¶58

9. Rule 24(3) of the Karnataka Minimum Wages

¶59

Rules 1958, clearly envisages weekly day rest off for an employee. The claim of the petitioner is seeking reliever charges to weekly off to the outsourced staff provided by the petitioner placing reliance on clause 6 of annexure-E the claim of the petitioner is contrary to clause 27 of annexure-B.

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:22506 WP No. 11549 of 2017

¶61

The claim of the petitioner as per annexure-E is contrary to clause no.27 of annexure-B. The entitlement of the petitioner for the said claim is a disputed question of fact and the writ Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and cannot be decided on the basis of the documents. There are disputes and different stands taken by the parties, which require evidence.

¶62

The Apex Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. And another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others¹ , placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has held that if the facts require oral evidence and there are factual situations where infact, the Court cannot grant such relief to the petitioner in such appropriate cases, the Court need not, in such cases, interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute between the parties arises of the alleged breach of contract is required

¶63

1 (2004) 3 SCC 553

¶64

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:22506 WP No. 11549 of 2017

¶65

to be adjudicated, whether the respondent was justified in

¶66

decline the relief to the petitioner is matter of evidence.

¶67

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶68

It is needless to observe that the petitioner is at

¶69

liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

¶72

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2

Mr Mohammad Aslam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr Mohammad Aslam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Managing Director Vs Sri. Jeevan Santosh Martis

Sri. Sawale Mahadev Vs the Divisional Controller

The Chairman Vs Sri. Mahadevaswamy

Workmen of Beml Ltd., Vs Union of India

Managemnt of M/S Aisin Nttf Pvt. Ltd. Vs Workmen of M/S Aisin Nttf Pvt. Ltd.

Workmen of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Bruhut Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike