CHAITHANYA BHARATHI GRAMEENA ABHIVRUDHI SAMSTHE Vs. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is assailing the letter of acceptance dated 28.01.2015 as at Annexure -F to the petition issued by the third respondent in favour the fourth respondent and is seeking that the third respondent be directed to accept the bid/offer of the petitioner and issue letter of acceptance/work order to the petitioner.

(2.) THE respondents invited the bids for providing house keeping in hospitality services for Officers Rest House, Officers Holiday Home/ARC, Supervisors Rest House and Subordinates Rest House as also Holiday Home for a period of two years. The petitioner and fourth respondent among others offered their bid in response to the tender notice dated 02.09.2014. The sealed tenders were to be dropped in the special tender box in the office of the third respondent between 13.10.2014 and 15.10.2014. Since the work involved house keeping apart from providing workers for maintenance, the composite amount was to be quoted which would include the wages payable to the workers engaged in that regard. The amount to be therefore quoted cannot be less than the minimum wages that is fixed by the competent authority as per the notification that would be in vogue. Both the petitioner and the third respondent have quoted the total amount that would be incurred by them as payable per employee, per day, to the workers who would be engaged by them as per the minimum wages payable which in effect would mean that they have not included any other cost that is to be incurred towards maintenance, house keeping and other related works. The rate of Rs. 24,570/ - per month quoted by the fourth respondent is the exact amount that would be incurred towards the minimum wages of three employees on calculating the amount per day. The amount derived and quoted by the fourth respondent is as per the order No. 1/2(6)/2014 -LS II dated 04.03.2014 whereunder the minimum wages was fixed.

(3.) THE respondents have however sought to justify their action. It is their contention that the minimum wages order dated 04.03.2014 was the one which was in force as on 02.09.2014 when the tender notification inviting the bids was issued. It is therefore contended that when the bid has been submitted based on the minimum wages order which was in force as on the date of the tender notification, the same was required to be considered. The respondents No. 1 to 3 further contend that though a subsequent notification ordering the enhancement of the minimum wages had been issued prior to completion of the tender process, the Tender Accepting Authority was of the opinion that if the same is taken into consideration, it would have altered the tender condition. It is further contended on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 that the additional special condition No. 2 of the tender document provides that the contractor shall pay the wages for care takers engaged as prescribed by the Ministry of Labour and Employment as given in the Minimum Wages Act. In that view, the requirement of law in that regard to pay the minimum wages would be satisfied and as such even if a lesser wage is indicated for submitting the bid, the same would not be contrary to law.