Disposed

Kerala State Electricity Board Petty Contractors and Line Workers Union Rep. by Secretary v. Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Kerala HC22 Nov 2022WP(C)/33390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Union challenged drastic reduction of labour rates for ABC cable works by KSEB, claiming violation of settlement terms. Court held rate fixation falls outside settlement and directed second respondent to consider petitioner's representation after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation (Ext.P6) and take a reasoned decision within one month after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Kerala State Electricity Board Petty… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C)No.33390 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 33390 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PETTY CONTRACTORS AND LINE WORKERS UNION REP. BY SECRETARY PETTY CONTRACTORS AND LINE WORKERS UNION, 20/154 (4) KULAPPULLY, SHORNUR -2, PALAKKAD, BEARING REGISTER NO.09-04/2016. REP.BY SECRETARY P.N. SATHEESAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, P.O. THRIKADIRI, PALAKKAD DIST., PIN-679502.

¶9

BY ADVS. JEENA JOSEPH G.DAMODARA PANICKER

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (KSEB) LIMITED, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (KSEB) LIMITED, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN- 695 004.

¶13

3 DIRECTOR, DISTRIBUTION AND SAFETY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (KSEB) LIMITED, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001.

¶14

4 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (KSEB) LIMITED, PALAKKAD CIRCLE, PIN- 679515.

¶15

5 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (KSEB) LIMITED, SHORNUR CIRCLE, PIN-679121.

¶16

BY ADVS. Joseph Antony

¶17

WP(C)No.33390 of 2022

¶18

¶19

JOHN MANJOORAN(K/526/2019) RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)(R-191)

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SHRI. B. PREMOD ,SC, KSEB.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2022, THE COURT ON 22/11/2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C)No.33390 of 2022

¶24

¶25

V.G.ARUN(J)

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 33390 of 2022

¶27

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2022

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner Union represents the petty contractors and line workers engaged by the Kerala State Electricity Board for petty works. The works are awarded as per the terms of settlement entered between the KSEB and the petitioner Union and an estimate of labour rates prepared in tune with the Kerala PWD Schedule of rates. The labour rates are revised periodically, taking into account the increase in material and labour charges. As the cost of material and labour had increased substantially after the last revision, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 request seeking revision of labour rates. While the petitioner was awaiting favourable decision on Ext.P2, the KSEB published labour rates for ABC cable works in its Samagra Software. To the petitioner's dismay, the new rates are almost 60% lesser than the rates fixed in Ext.P3 published in the year 2021. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the drastic reduction of labour rates, Ext.P6 representation was preferred before the second respondent. As the second respondent failed to take any action based on the representation, this writ petition is filed

¶30

WP(C)No.33390 of 2022

¶31

¶32

seeking the following reliefs;

¶33

i). issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction to set aside Ext.P4 labour rates for HT and LT ABC works as mentioned in Samagra Software.

¶34

ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any writ or direction to direct the respondents not to implement Ext.P4 labour rates to the distribution circle where the petitioner Union belongs.

¶35

iii). Declare that the Ext.P4 is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.

¶36

Adv.Jeena Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the manner of allotment of works to petty contractors, who themselves are workers, is governed by the terms of the settlement entered into between the KSEB and the petitioner Union. The labour rates are fixed based on the Schedule of Rates (SoR) of the Kerala PWD. Ext.P3 labour charges for ABC cable drawing was also fixed in the same manner. The respondents committed gross illegality by unilaterally reducing the rates as per Ext.P4, that too by about 60%. This aspect having been brought to the notice of the second respondent, the said authority was bound to place it before the Board and get the rates revised in accordance with the PWD SoR.

¶37

Senior Advocate Raju Joseph, appearing for the respondents as instructed by Adv.Joseph Antony, put forth the following arguments;

¶38

The members of the petitioner Union are allotted works based on

¶39

¶40

¶41

quotations. The schedule of rates is notified for the purpose of comparison with the rates prevailing in PWD, Delhi schedule of rates, etc. The petty contractors can quote any amount which according to them is reasonable and profitable. While considering the quotations, the Board will look into the PWD rates, CPWD rates or Delhi schedule of rates for the purpose of comparison. The work will thereafter be awarded to the lowest bidder.

¶42

As far as ABC HT and LT cables are concerned, there is no PWD rate for comparison, since ABC cable were used exclusively by the KSEB. Therefore, the KSEB had fixed the schedule of rates on its own. When ABC cables were introduced in the market it was highly costly and therefore, the Board very seldom used ABC cables. Hence, the Board never bothered about the rates quoted by petty contractors as the stake involved was not substantial. Later, the price of ABC cables came down and the Board started using the cables in large quantities. It was in such circumstances, that Ext.P4 schedule of rates was published in the Samagra software. The schedule of rates seen in Ext.P4 are the Probable Amount of Contract(PAC) and the contractors are at liberty to quote above or below the scheduled rates. Attention is drawn to Ext.R1(a) to point out that some of the petty contractors had quoted below the estimate rate for LT ABC cable works.

¶43

¶44

¶45

Replying to the arguments, Adv.Jeena Joseph refuted the submission that schedule of rates are only for the purpose of understanding the rates prevailing in the PWD. It is asserted that PWD rates are the basis on which the KSEB is fixing its schedule of rates from 1996 onwards. Referring to Ext.P8, it is submitted that Ext.P3 schedule of rates for ABC cable works was also fixed based on PWD rates. Relying on Ext.P7 judgment, it is contended that on an earlier occasion, this court had directed the KSEB to strictly abide by the terms of settlement.

¶46

In spite of the assertive submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find more merit in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that ABC cable work being done exclusively by the KSEB, the PWD SoR cannot be the basis for fixing the schedule of rates for ABC cable works. As rightly contended, award of work is based on quotation and whatever be the estimate rate, it is ultimately for the bidder to decide as to the rate at which quotation is to be submitted. The settlement between the KSEB and the petitioner union is with respect to the award of works and there is no material to show that fixing of labour rates is also covered by the settlement. Even if it is accepted that the settlement covers fixing of rates also, violation of the terms of settlement can only lead to action under the Industrial Disputes Act. This precisely is what the learned Single Judge has held in Ext.P7 judgment. In any event, the petitioner having submitted Ext.P6 representation, the

¶47

¶48

¶49

second respondent is bound to consider the same.

¶50

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation and take a reasoned decision thereon within one month, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

dpk

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33390/2022

¶58

PETITIO	NER EXHIB	ITS
Exhibit	P1	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE KSEB ORDER DATED 16/11/2012.
Exhibit	P2	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 8/12/2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P2 A	TYPED COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2.
Exhibit	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE LABOUR RATES PREVAILING IN THE YEAR 2021 FOR THE DRAWING OF HT ABC CABLE AND LT ABC CABLE.
Exhibit	P4	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPROVED LABOUR RATES WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE SAMAGRA SOFTWARE DATED 8/10/2022 AND IT IS CIRCULATED TO ALL DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEERS OF ALL ELECTRICAL CIRCLES
Exhibit	P5	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE KSEB TO SETTLE THE DEMANDS RAISED BY PETTY CONTRACTORS AND THEIR WORKMEN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THEIR SETTLEMENT DATED 12/2/1996.
Exhibit	P6	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/10/2022 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P6 A	TYPED COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6.
Exhibit	P7	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/6/1999 IN OP NO.22005/1997 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit	P8	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.BO(FID) NO.1189/2018 (D(DIT)/D6-AE3-ULD-2018
		EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.WO-6242- 2021-22/7 DATED 22/9/2021 ISSUED BY THE ASISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, THAMARASERY.

Kerala State Electricity Board Petty Contractors and Line Workers Union Rep. by Secretary v. Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Electricity Board Petty Contractors and Line Workers Union Rep. by Secretary v. Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zubair v Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Udayabhanu Vs Union of India

B. Premachandra Kumar Vs Baburaj

Sophiya J. Vs the Director of Medical Education

Geetha Parameswaran, Vs State of Kerala

MD Rayees @ Rais Vs State of Kerala