ARVIND KHANNA Vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The platntiff, in response to the notice inviting tender issued by the defendant International Airport Authority, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority') submitted the tenders for the work of operation electronic PABX telephone exchange (80 + 100 EPABX) at Delhi Airport. The exchange was to be manned round the clock basis everyday. The tender of the plaintiff was accepted on 10th October,1984 and the work was to commence on 11th 0ctober,1984. For the proper performance of the said contract dated 10th 0ctober,1984, the plaintiff was to engage employees as Telephone Operators. It was the term of the said contract dated 10th October, 1984 that the contractor shall at all time abide by the Minimum Wages Act, Salary Act and the Bonus Act currently inforce as stipulated by the Central and the State Governments respectively. It was further the term of the contract that the contractor shall disburse salary to the employees in the presence of authorised representative of the Asstt.Director (ELNCS). It is the case of the plaintiff that prevailing wages at the time of entering the contract was Rs.566.00 per month for the required category of employees which was enhanced to Rs.662.00 per month w.e.f. 15th October, 1985 and thereafter at Rs.781.00 per month w.e.f. 1st May,1987. These wages enhanced from time to time were paid by the plaintiff to the employees as per the chart filed as Annexure 'A' with the plaint. Thus a sum of Rs.1,38,051.00 balance due to be recovered from the defendant. The defendant authority has failed to pay, hence the suit.

(2.) The Defendant Authority has filed the written statement. It took the plea that the Authority was not liable to pay the enhanced wages because there was no such term of the contract. The agreement dated 10th October, 1984, Knowhere stipulated thathe enhanced wages paid by the plaintiff would be reimbursed by the defendant authority. Moreover the increase in labour wages was beyond the scope of the contract/ agree- merit, hence the Authority cannot be made liable to make payment. Moreover, the employees engaged by the plaintiff were not the employees of the defendant Authority, therefore, there was no liability on the part of the defendant.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :