Dismissed

Omkar Security Agency v. the Medical Superintendant, Esic Hospital

Kerala HC15 Jun 2015WP(C)/13921/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the award of a tender for housekeeping services. The court held that a letter signed by one committee member could not override committee minutes and that a Labor Officer's letter regarding minimum wages was invalid against a specific Government notification.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the tender award was dismissed.

Omkar Security Agency Vs the Medical… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/25TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 13921 of 2015 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-------------

¶8

OMKAR SECURITY AGENCY, DEVASWOM BUILDING, SOUTH OF PETROL PUMP, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR - K.BABY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

---------------

¶12

1. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDANT, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION HOSPITAL, PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM, KERALA-691 574.

¶13

2. M/S. AAPT FACILITY MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, 3/298 C-1, VATTAMALA HOUSE, ERAMATH ROAD, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC, ESI CORPN., R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH, R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN & R2 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rvs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 13921 of 2015 (M)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

-----------------------

¶21

EXT. P1	: COPY VII.	OF THE	TE	NDER ALO	NG WITH ANNEXURE-III, VI AND
EXT. P2	: COPY WITH	OF THE THE REC	COM OMME	PARATIVE NDATION T	STATEMENT OF THE BIDDERS ALONG HEREIN.
EXT. P3	: COPY DTD.2	OF 9.1.201	THE 5.	REQUEST	MADE BY THE PETITIONER
EXT. P4	: COPY INFOR	OF THE MATION	IN ACT	FORMATION DTD.14.1.	RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO 2015.
EXT. P5	: COPY INFOR	OF T MATION	HE ACT	REQUEST DTD.3.3.2	MADE UNDER THE RIGHT TO 015.
EXT. P5(	A) : COPY INFOR	OF THE MATION	IN ACT,	FORMATION DTD.7.4.	RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO 2015.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

----------------------

¶24

EXT. R1 :	COPY 29/0	OF THE 4/2015.	LETTER NO.544/D/34/11/EHP/12/ADMN. DATED
EXT. R1(A)	: COPY MEMB	OF TH ERS.	E STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE
EXT. R1(B)	: COPY OFFI	OF THE CER, PAR	LETTER NO.251/2015 FROM ASSISTANT LABOUR AVOOR DATED 22/04/2015.
EXT. R1(C)	: COPY 7TH STAF	OF THE NOVEMBE F.	KERALA GAZETTE, EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED ON R 2013 REGARDING MINIMUM WAGES HOSPITAL
EXT. R1(D)	: COPY	OF THE	GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 23/03/2012.

/TRUE COPY/

RVS.

P.A.TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶29

W.P(C). No.13921 of 2015

¶30

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2015.

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved with the award of the tender to

¶33

the 2^nd respondent, purportedly based on the comparative statement relied on at Ext.P2 and the contention that the petitioner had quoted rates for the workers at the minimum of the minimum wages applicable to them, as is revealed inExt.P4.

¶34

The brief background facts are that the 1^st respondent invited tenders for housekeeping services as per Ext.P1; both Supervisors and Cleaning staff. The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent along with two others submitted the bids. Admittedly, the 2^nd respondent's tender was the lowest. The petitioner's contention is that, by Ext.P2 the tender was awarded to him despite the 2^nd respondent's tender being lower, since the petitioner was the lowest tenderor satisfying the minimum wages as entitled to each of the workers. The petitioner also, as was noticed above, relies on Ext.P4 issued by the Assistant Labour Officer, Karunagappalli.

¶35

WP(C) No.13921 of 2015

¶36

¶37

The specific contention of the 1^st respondent in their Counter Affidavit is that, Ext.P2 is not the Minutes of the Committee, which had been constituted to look into the various tenders and accept the successful bidder. Ext.P2 is the opinion of one Sri.R.K. Meena, the Deputy Director, who was one of the members in the committee. The Committee obviously did not agree with such recommendation, as is indicated in Ext.R1(a). This Court is inclined to accept the contention of the 1^st respondent, since Ext.P2 shows only the signature of Sri.R.K. Meena, while Ext.R1(a) Minutes of the Committee shows the signature of all the six members of the committee. Hence, no reliance can be placed on Ext.P2.

¶38

The next contention with respect to the minimum wages, is only based on Ext.P4. The same is refuted by the 2^nd respondent, specifically with the notification produced at Ext.R1 (c) dated 07.11.2013, which is applicable from 01.01.2013. A reading of the schedule of the notification would show that a Housekeeper is entitled to a minimum wage of Rs.8,100/(Rupees Eight thousand and one hundred only) in a scale as stipulated therein and the Housekeeping Assistant starting at the

¶39

WP(C) No.13921 of 2015

¶40

¶41

minimum of Rs.7,775/- (Rupees Seven thousand seven hundred and seventy five only). The Sanitary Supervisor is eligible to a minimum wage of Rs.8,975/- (Rupees Eight thousand nine hundred and seventy five only) and the Sanitary Worker to that of Rs.8,175/- (Rupees Eight thousand one hundred and seventy five only).

¶42

The petitioner neither by way of a subsequent notification nor pointed out any specific designation as indicated by the Assistant Labour Officer in Ext.P4, to substantiate the contention that the petitioner had in fact offered to take the work at the minimum wage as required to be paid under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the teeth of the specific notification and the specific job descriptions pointed out by the 1^st respondent, Ext.P4 is of no consequence. The Labour Officer could not, by his own, determine minimum wages, or decide on the designations; which power is solely with the Government.

¶43

The writ petition would stand dismissed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Omkar Security Agency v. the Medical Superintendant, Esic Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omkar Security Agency v. the Medical Superintendant, Esic Hospital

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

Jesna Jain Vs the Union of India

Pappachan P.P Vs State of Kerala

Murali Vs the State of Kerala

K.G.Mohanan Vs K.K.Jalan

Rakhi.K.Devesh Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Kumar Vs District Collector