LexKERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. versus KURIEN E. KALATHIL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. A v. KURIEN E. KALATHIL AND ORS. JULY 19, 2000 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] labour laws: Minimum Wages Act, 1948: State Electricity Board-Contract for construction of a dam with a contractor-Government notification enhancing minimum wages- Consequently enhanced wages paid by contractor-Claim by contractor from Electricity Board-Held permissible-Remedy for such a claim-Held B c not permissible under writ jurisdiction but under private law-However in D view of lapse of time and danger of miscarriage of justice Supreme Court itself examined the matter-Declined to interfere with the order of payment passed by High Court in writ jurisdiction. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226: Writ jurisdiction-Held not a proper forum for interpretation and implementation of a clause of a contract. Contract-Held does not become statutory contract merely because it has been awarded by a statutory body. The appellant-Electricity Board entered into an agreement with the respondent-contractor on 16th September, 1981 for construction ofa dam for generation of hydro electric power in the State. Thereafter, the Government E F of Kerala issued a notification dated 30th March, 1983, under the minimum Wages Act, 1948 revising the minimum wages payable to the employees employed in the works stated in the notification w.e.f. 1st April, 1983. The G respondent-contractor claimed that he started paying revised minimum wages to the employees. Accordingly, applying the labour escalation formula, the Electricity Board made payments to the contractor for the work done from 1st April, 1983 to December 1984. However, from January 1985 onwards the Board stopped making payment of labour escalation on the ground that the H 581 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. I S.C.R. A notification dated 30th March, 1983 does not apply to the work of constructing a dam. The State Government referred the dispute regarding the applicability of the notification to the Industrial Tribunal. By an award dated 14th October, 1993 the Industrial Tribunal held that the notification was applicable to the work in question and that the workmen concerned in the dispute were entitled B to wage rates and other benefits fixed in the minimum wage notification. The contractor made payment of a sum of Rs. 9,93,93,868 towards the escalated minimum wages to the workmen for the period commencing from 1st January, 1985 to 31st March, 1993 and consequently claimed that he was entitled to reimbursement for the said amount His further case was that he entered into a Memorandum dated 4th July, 1994 with the workmen through their Union C giving effect to the award of the Industrial Tribunal and that the said settlement was endorsed by the Labour Officer. In the meanwhile, the Board made payments of various amounts as advances to the contractor under various heads to enable him to proceed with the work. However, by its letter dated 23rd December, 1994, the Electricity Board ordered recovery of these advances amounting to Rs. 3.65 corers with interest from the works bill of the D contractor from January, 1995 onwards. The contractor filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court for quashing the letter dated 23rd December, 1994 as well as for directions to the Board to make payment of amount of labour escalation with interest. E During the pendency of this writ petition the Electricity Board terminated the contract The contract.or filed another writ petition before the High Court The High Court held the termination of the contract was arbitrary, unjust and not in public interest. It directed the Electricity Board to pay to the contractor the labour esealation amounts with interest@ 18%. F In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant- Electricity Board that (i) the dispute relating to interpretation of a clause in a contract and implementation of such a clause cannot be made subject matter of a writ petition and remedy of the aggrieved person lies in approaching the Civil Court or some other appropriate forum; (ii) in the absence of proof of actual payment of enhanced wages to the workmen, the contractor is not G entitled to get reimbursement of any amount from the Board; and (iii) all contracts entered into by a body whose existence may be governed by the provisions of a statute are not statutory contracts. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.