GANESH CHANDRA KANUNGO Vs. HINDUSTHAN STEEL WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Super Class contractor, has filed this Writ Application for a direction to the opp. parties to pay Rs. 14,06,969/ on account of escalated labour charges along with interest at the rate of 20% per annum from 8.2.2001 without deduction of 15% overhead charges being a statutory reimbursement and for further direction to the Rourkela Steel Plant to pay the said amount directly to the petitioner.

(2.) FACTS leading to filing of this case are that the Rourkela Steel Plant (Opp. Parties 3 and 4) invited tender for construction and maintenance of Northern and Southern side Diversion Channels for Storm Water Drainage of the Rourkela Steel Plant. Pursuant to such tender all notice, the Opp. Party No. 1 which is a Government of India Undertaking submitted its tender. The said Opp. Party No. 1 having been selected for the work, an agreement was executed between the Rourkela Steel Plant and the Opp. Party No, 1. Said agreement was executed vide Contract Bond No. 784 of 1994 95. The aforesaid agreement contained a clause with regard to payment for labour escalation and escalation on POL (HSD). Said clause is quoted below :

(3.) THE Opp. Parties No. 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit denying the claim of the petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the entire work entrusted to the Opp. Party No. 1 was given to five agencies including the petitioner. So far as the contracts between the Opp. Party No. 1 and M/s. Vijeta Constructions Ltd. and M/s. Rout Enterprises are concerned, they provided for escalation for Northern as well as Southern side diversion channels and in respect of other three agencies, escalation was permitted only in respect of southern side and no escalation was permitted for Northern side as the same was to be completed within a period of two months. Case of the Opp. Parties No. 1 and 2 is that the petitioner having agreed to such a term now cannot maintain the Writ Application claiming escalation on labour as well as POL for Northern side. Further ground taken in the counter affidavit is that the claim of the petitioner being in dispute appropriate remedy lies in a suit and in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot entertain the disputed questions of fact.