Calcutta high court dismissed a petition as the petitioner has failed to establish any illegality/irregularity on the part of the respondents in terminating the contract of the petitioner, after issuing warning to do so, worth interference by the writ court.
The Judgment in the case of Mina Begum vs The Kolkata Port Trust And Another (W.P.O. No. 466 of 2019) was served by The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The writ petitions, bearing W.P.O. No. 466 of 2019 and W.P.O. No. 559 of 2019, are taken up for hearing together, since the cause of action for both arise from the same sequence of events. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s M N Sultana Enterprise, which succeeded in an e-tender floated by the Kolkata Port Trust (KoPT) on September 18, 2017 and was issued a work order, bearing No. KOPT/KDS/CIV/T/2170/1877, on December 6, 2017 for upkeep of certain offices of the KoPT (respondent no.1) and providing semi-skilled/unskilled labourers with necessary tools and tackles for miscellaneous works at different locations for two years. On March 20, 2019, the Superintending Engineer (Kolkata), Civil Engineering Department, KoPT (respondent no. 2) issued a letter to the petitioner’s firm and another concern, intimating that Register for Payment of Contractor’s Employees was required to be produced at the time of processing the bill for the work for a certain period and requesting the two concerns to strictly follow all the contractual clauses of the subject contract and KoPT General Conditions of Contract (GCC), including the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to abide by the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 in respect of bonus to their employees and to ensure timely payments to the labourers/employees involved. The petitioner replied in writing on March 26, 2019, alleging that departmental officers of the KoPT do not accept payments of ESI, EPF, etc. made by the petitioner and asking for a cost analysis or break-up of the rate of such payments against each worker. However, vide letter dated April 10, 2019, respondent no. 2 reiterated his previous stand.
The Hon’ble court after going through the facts and circumstances of the case observed that the petitioner has failed to establish any illegality/irregularity on the part of the respondents in terminating the contract of the petitioner, after issuing warning to do so, worth interference by the writ court. Accordingly, W.P.O No.466 of 2019 and W.P.O. No.559 of 2019 are dismissed on contest. The connected pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of the order shall be provided to the parties upon due compliance of all requisite formalities.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AKANKSHA