AMAYA KUMAR PANI Vs. PARADIP PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.1 to 3.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the tender called notice (Annexure-1) date 21.4.2011 issued by opposite party No.4 incorporating a condition as stipulated under sub-clause (ii) of Clause-2 of the eligibility criteria of the Tender Call Notice to the effect that he must have failed license from the Central Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar for the purpose of submitting his bid for the job "cleaning of leave crossing/clamping of hand lever points/vacuum release and uncoupling of wagon hose of incoming iron ore rakes at main yard/tippler yard" urging contention that it is contrary to the provision of Section 1(4)(b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, which provides that the Act applies to every contractor who employees or who employed on any day of the preceding twelve, twenty months or more workmen. According to the petitioner, the Act does not apply to him as he has not employed 20 or more number of labour as stipulated in Section 1(4)(b) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and incorporation of the aforesaid condition is arbitrary and discriminatory which is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he has prayed to quash the said clause from the tender call notice holding that the documents submitted by the petitioner are sufficient for the tender notice and the same be accepted and non-consideration of the tender document filed by the petitioner is illegal and/or in the alternative to declare the whole tender process as illegal and to accept the tender application of the petitioner without insisting to produce the labour license as mentioned in the tender call notice. Further he has prayed to issue a direction to the opposite parties to consider the application of the petitioner along with Others so far as the tender floated under Annexure-1 is concerned.

(3.) The aforesaid contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is strongly is opposed by the opposites by filing a detailed counter statement. Having regard to the short point involved in this case, keeping in view the fact of non-mentioning of number of supply contract labourers to the opposite parties by the petitioner, it is to be seen whether he can be treated to be a successful tenderer. The applicability of the provisions of the Act under Section 1 (4)(b) is only to a contract who employees or who employed on any day of the preceding twelve months twenty or more workmen. Therefore, we have to consider only the facts in connection with legal contentions involved in this case.