Orissa High Court
M/S Biraja Construction vs State Of Odisha And Others on 16 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 16963 of 2019
M/s Biraja Construction ..... Petitioner
Mr. P.C. Nayak, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
13.12.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
03.
2. Heard Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to
opposite party no.4 to make payment of enhanced/increased labour
charges, as per Notification of Labour and Employment Department
under Annexure-2 for the work "Improvement to Alaka Drainage System
(Phase-I) under NABARD Assistance (RIDF-XVI), Bid Identification
No. CE-DR-CTC-02/2011-12" vide agreement No. 512F2 of 2011-12
within a stipulated period.
4. Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
as per Clause-31 (b) of the agreement, the petitioner is entitled the
enhanced labour charges, but the same has been denied on the plea that
no such condition has been stipulated in the agreement.
5. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate
contended that since there is no condition stipulated in the agreement
itself, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties after going through
the record, it appears that the agreement was executed between the
petitioner and the opposite parties. As per clause 31 (b) of the agreement,
price adjustment for labour will be made only if there is only increase or
decrease in the minimum wages of Rs.55.00 fixed by the State
Government. The notification issued by the Labour & ESI Department
dated 06.10.2012 under Annexure-2 stipulates that such benefit is
admissible to the petitioner.
7. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that similar
question had come up for consideration before this Court in the case of
Sanjaya Jain v. State of Odisha and others, AIR 2022 Orissa 183. In
paragraph-13 of the judgment, it has been stated as follows:-
"In view of such position, the action of the Authorities in refusing to
grant the benefit of escalated labour cost to the Petitioner cannot
have any justification and, as such, the Petitioner is entitled to get the
differential labour cost, as per the Notification dated 06.10.2012 in
Annexure 4. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are directed to calculate
the differential labour cost and pay the same to the Petitioner as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months
from the date of communication of this Judgment."
8. In view of the aforesaid observation made by this Court and taking
the very same notification dated 06.10.2012 since the benefit has been
extended to one Sanjaya Jain, there is no reason not to extend such
benefit to the petitioner. Thus, this court directs the opposite parties to
extend the increased labour charges to the petitioner in terms of the
Clause 31 (b) of the agreement read with notification dated 06.10.2012
under Annexure-2, taking into consideration the ratio decided by this
Court in the case of Sanjaya Jain (supra). The entire exercise shall be
completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
three months from the date of communication of the order.
9. With the above observation/direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Arun (B. P. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
