MINA BEGUM, PROPRIETOR Vs. KOLKATA PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 7/1/2021 whereby WPO 466 of 2019 and WPO 559 of 2019 have been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant is a proprietorship firm which was the successful bidder in response to the electronic tender issued by the respondent Kolkata Port Trust (KPT) for providing service for general up-keepment of Chief Engineer's Office and other offices at Budgebudge by providing and supplying semi-skilled and unskilled labourers with necessary tools and tackles as and when required for different locations as directed by the Office of the Superintending Engineer (Kol) for a period of two years. The work order for the aforesaid job was issued in favour of the appellant on 6/12/2017. According to the appellant, she had duly submitted before the respondent No. 2 on regular basis a declaration in respect of compliance of the norms with regard to the payment of wages to the labours and she was also submitting statutory contributions to Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO). The letter dtd. 29/3/2019 was sent by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner requiring her to produce the register for payment to contractor's employees at the time of processing of the bills. The appellant had submitted the written prayer before the respondent No. 2 stating that the appellant was making all requisite payments and contributions before the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) but the concerned office had refused to accept the payment resulting into the delay in preparation of bills. According to the appellant, 25% deduction was made by the respondent from the bills of January, 2019 to April, 2019 abruptly and arbitrarily. Some exchange of correspondence had taken place between the appellant and the respondents and thereafter the appellant was issued the letter dtd. 2/9/2019 by the respondent No. 2 intimating that in terms of the work order, the contract would be terminated within 7 days in the event the appellant fails to regularize the payment with regard to the previous dues before the statutory authorities. The appellant had filed WPO 466 of 2019 challenging the letter dtd. 2/9/2019. Learned Single Judge by order dtd. 24/9/2019 had directed the appellant to meet the respondent No. 2 with all documentary evidence of compliance of the labourer loss along with the bills for the months subsequent to April, 2019 and directed the respondent No. 2 to prepare report and had listed the writ petition on a later date. Subsequently, the respondent No. 3 had issued the letter dtd. 14/10/2019 proposing to terminate the contract as per clause 8.3 of the general conditions of the contract. The appellant had submitted the reply and the respondents had issued the termination letter dtd. 28/10/2019 which became subject matter of challenge in WPO 559 of 2019.

(3.) Learned Single Judge by the impugned common order dtd. 7/1/2021 has decided both the writ petitions and has found that the appellant had failed to establish any illegality or irregularity on the part of the respondents in terminating the contract. Accordingly both the writ petitions have been dismissed on contest.