A. CHINNADURAI Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the Award passed by the sole Arbitrator dated 16.04.2009, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) The Claimant was awarded work for Handling and Housekeeping works at LPG Bottling Plant for a period of two years from 01.10.2000 to 30.09.2002 and the value of the work is Rs.55,40,000/- and an agreement was entered into between the Claimant and the Respondent on 18.10.2000. As per the contract 5 lakhs cylinders have to be filled per month. Clause 7 of the Contract permits the Claimant to employ their own labour. However, the Plant Manager prevented the Claimant from employing the labourers of their choice and forced to engage the erstwhile labourers who are not efficient and co-operative. The work was commenced with the existing contract labourers. Though the bills were claimed as per the work order for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, but the bills were passed only as per actual filling. As the Claimant's workmen were not allowed, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.4037 of 2001 before this Court to permit him to engage his own labourers. The Writ Petition was allowed on 20.04.2001. Despite the Order, in September 2001, the Plant Manager interfered with the employment of labourers by the Claimant and there was a drop in production. On 06.12.2001, the Claimant issued notice to the respondent raising claim of Rs.10,96,814/-. However, the respondent terminated the contract by letter dated 02.02.2002 in an arbitrary manner. Hence, the Claimant claimed Rs.50,000/- notional income per month and the Claimant has claimed Rs.24,76,814/- with 18% interest before the Arbitration.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent that the Claimant had failed in fulfilling the Contractual obligations and violated the statutory regulations. The Claimant had defaulted in payment of PF and ESI to the statutory authorities and wages for the labourers engaged by them and the same were paid by them. According to them, a sum of Rs.4,67,416/- has to be paid by the repondent. Hence, the respondent raised the counter claim. It is the further contention of the respondent that on several occasions, the contract labourers engaged by the Claimant had struck work and bottling operation had been affected. On account of this, the Corporation has suffered loss which has been informed to the Claimant then and there. Due to the work stoppage, not only loss was suffered, but also incurred additional cost on account of making alternative arrangements.