SAILEN SETH Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of the order dated 3-986 passed by Sri S.B. Muhuri, learned Assistant District Judge, Burdwan, in Title Suit No. 175 of 1985, whereby the learned Judge rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the aforesaid Title Suit against the Steel Authority of India Limited (Defendant No. 1) and other defendants, who were the Officers of the Defendant No. 1 company for a declaration that the stoppage of work in Durgapur Branch Stock Yard between the period from June 14, 1984 to July 15, 1984, was due to wrongful, illegal and unwarranted action on the part of the defendants and that the plaintiff was not liable to the defendants for any alleged loss of the defendants arising out of or connected therewith; for accounts in respect of the claim of Rs. 4,63,660/- (four lakhs sixty three thousand six hundred and sixty) demanded by the defendant No. 2 on Jan. 30, 1985, or for any other claim arising out of the stoppage of work during June 14, 1984 to July 15, 1984 and upon such accounting, for refund of the amount which would be found due and payable out of such deduction made upto the date; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from deducting any amount from the plaintiff's running bills for alleged detention, demurrage, diversion or other charges on account of stoppage of the work as mentioned above and again for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from appropriating the sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- or any part thereof so far deducted from the plaintiff's running bills towards satisfaction of their purported claim on account of the alleged detention, demurrage etc. or for any other claim arising out of the stoppage of the aforesaid work as threatened in the defendants' letter dated Jan. 30, 1985. The plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed a petition for temporary injunction praying for temporarily restraining the defendants from appropriating the said sum of Rs. 4,76,000/- already deducted from the plaintiffs running bills and from deducting any further sum from the plaintiffs running bills on account of demurrage, detention, diversion or other charges arising out of the stoppage of the work during the period, as aforesaid till the disposal of the suit.

(3.) Plaintiffs case, in brief, was that the plaintiff was a handling contractor engaged in the job of handling Iron and Steel materials at the Durgapur Stock Yard of the defendant No. 1 Company. The defendants Nos. 2 to 6 were the Officers of the defendant No. 1 company. The plaintiff once submitted a tender to the defendant No. 1-company but that tender was rejected and fresh tenders were called by the defendant No. 1-company. The plaintiff moved the High Court at Calcutta under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and through the intervention of the High Court, the defendants were compelled to allow the plaintiff to submit a fresh tender and the said tender being again the lowest, the plaintiff was given the job for a period of two years from May 14, 1984. The job involved the loading and unloading of wagons which arrived at the Durgapur Branch Office Stock Yard of the defendant No. 1-company within the free time allowed. According to the contract the plaintiff as contractor was responsible for demurrage, wharfage and/or any other incidental charges concurred due to the failure of the contractor to make over the wagons to the Plant Authorities within the free time. The demurrage on account of the detention beyond the free time as stipulated in clause 15(b) of the contract between the parties would be payable by the contractor. The demurrage thus payable would be calculated periodically by the Company and the Contractor would pay to the Company such demurrage immediately on demand. If the contractor would not pay such demurrage within fifteen days from the date of such intimation, the Company would recover such dues on account of demurrage from the pending bills of the Contractor (plaintiff) or the security deposit of the Contractor as per clause 15(e) of the contract. As per the contract, the contractor would abide by the Labour Laws, Minimum Wages Act and other Laws and Regulations in performance of his work. The Contractor, who was engaged in the handling work i.e. the plaintiff, used to pay the labourers the wages at the rate of Rs. 4.25P. per day up to April, 1984. The defendant No. 6, who was the Branch Manager of the Sales Office, with an ulterior motive, issued a letter dated June 6, 1984, directing the plaintiff for making payment to the labourers at the rate of Rs. 13.35P. per day which was said to be the minimum wages for the labourers. The defendant No. 6 made it known to the labourers' Union that he had directed the plaintiff to pay to the labourers the minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 13.35P. per day. The aforesaid rate, according to the plaintiff, was arrived at without any reasonable basis and in total disregard to the total materials in the record in the matter. Immediately thereafter the plaintiff by his letter sought for a clarification regarding the basis of such minimum wages but to no, success. The defendant No. 6 again by his letter dated June 8, 1984, asked the plaintiff's confirmation about his readiness to make payment to the labourers at the aforesaid rate. Being thus supported and instigated by the principal employer (defendants) the aspiration of the labourers became high. The labourers became restive and insisted upon payment at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 13.35P. per day. The defendant No. 6 by another letter dated June 12, 1984, directed the plaintiff to make payment at such rate to the labourers. To purchase peace, the plaintiff agreed to pay the labourers at that high rate on ad hoc basis but taking advantage of the situation, the labourers insisted that they would not resume work unless their other demands were immediately met. In such a situation the plaintiff was constrained to stop the handling work on and from June 14, 1984 upon due notice to the defendants by his letter dated June 13, 1984. Thereafter the defendant No. 6 by his letter dated July 5, 1984, directed the plaintiff to resume work immediately failing which it was threatened that appropriate steps would be taken against the plaintiff by awarding the contract to other person. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a writ petition before the High Court and through the intervention of the High Court the defendants withdrew the letter dated June 6, 1984 and June 8, 1984, whereby the plaintiff was directed to make payment of the wages at the enhanced rate and as per the direction of the High Court the handling work was resumed with effect from July 16, 1984. There was thus stoppage of work in between the period from June 14, 1984 to July 15, 1984. The plaintiff suffered enormous damage because of the unreasonable demand of the workers at the instigation of the defendant No. 6. According to the plaintiff, it is the defendants who were responsible for the stoppage of the handling work by the plaintiff during the aforesaid period at the Stock Yard.