M N SINGH Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred to challenge the impugned order cum- notice dated 3.4.2007 contained in Annexure P/3 whereby the contractors are required to make payment to his employees of labour charges for the period with effect from 1.4.07 by account payee cheques.

(2.) Petitioner is a contractor who was awarded work contract by the respondents. Copy of the agreement is on record as Annexure P/1. Copy of the terms and conditions of the contract is stated to be contained in Annexure P/2. Contract is in respect of District Anooppur which is a scheduled and tribal area as declared by the Hon'ble President of India. Respondent no. 3 being senior labour officer (Administration S.E.C.L.) issued an order- cum- notice dated 3.4.2007 with direction to contractors of S.E.C.L. to pay the wages by account payee cheques. It is stated in the petition that the condition of payment of wages by account payee cheques was not stipulated either in the agreement contained in Annexure P/1 or in the terms and conditions contained in Annexure P/2. Thus, the respondent no. 3 is stated to have exceeded his power which has been challenged on account of being unreasonable and unjustified. It is further stated that most of the labourers are illiterate and destitute. They need wages, virtually, everyday to meet out the ends for the purpose of survival. Accordingly, every contractor is required to make payment daily of the daily wages irrespective of clearance of bills. It is very impractical to ask the daily wages labourers to open the bank account and collect the wages through bank because the labourers need the wages virtually day- today. It is further pleaded that for opening a bank account, identification of the proposed account holder is required. Petitioner being the contractor would be required to identify the labourers and in case of any kind of fraud on the part of labourers, the petitioner may be held guilty of various offences under law. Further, the bank in the absence of satisfactory material for identification may refuse to open the account. This would also cause harassment to the labourers who would then be not entitled to seek encashment of the cheques. Moreover, for opening of the account, the petitioner will have to deposit minimum amount for the operation of the bank account. Thus, it is stated in the writ petition that the impugned order marked as Annexure P/3 is in violation of principles of natural justice because the respondents are required to adopt the procedure which is not prescribed by law as well as contract. Looking to the conditions of labourers it would be unreasonable to require contractor to make payment of wages by account payee cheques. Doctrine of promissory estoppel has also been sought to be invoked. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order marked as Annexure P/3 may be quashed on account of being illegal and unreasonable.

(3.) Respondents submitted a joint return. Preliminary objection has been raised that clause 12 of the contract provides for settlement of dispute by Engineer-in- charge within 30 days which is an alternative and efficacious remedy and accordingly, the petition is liable to dismissal. It has been further stated that respondents have given contract to the petitioner. Respondent has received number of complaints from the workers that the contractor was not paying wages due to them and the accounts were manipulated. So, a policy decision was taken that payment to workers be given through bank's account payee cheques. It is further averred in the return that the petitioner/contractor was not making proper payment to the workers.