Intelligence Security of India V. The Union of India and National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology and Professor I/C-Administration, National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology and The Director, National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology and Dr. Sanjay Kumar

WPC/6229/2013

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Intelligence Security of India, represented by its proprietor Ajit Kumar Singh, who filed a writ petition against the Union of India and the National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology (NIFFT), now known as the National Institute of Advanced Management and Technology (NIAMT). The petitioner sought to quash a notice dated 06.09.2013 that terminated their contract for providing security services, alleging non-payment of dues by the respondents. The respondents defended the termination citing non-compliance with statutory obligations and non-payment of wages to security personnel, which were later addressed by the Regional Labour Commissioner's intervention. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to adhere to statutory requirements and contractual obligations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 811553 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. and Anr. Versus Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd. and Anr., Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., Har Shankar v. State of U.P., Sham Lal v. State of Punjab, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh vs. Sri T.S. Hariharan
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BAKSHI VIBHA; DEVANAND KUMAR; RAM YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK DUBEY; SURABHI
• Keywords: Security Personnel; Termination of contract; Writ petition; Non-payment of wages; Non-compliance with statutory obligations
• Section: 21

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6229 of 2013 M/s Intelligence Security of India represented through its Proprietor Ajit Kumar Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Sri Ramyash Singh, resident of G2/D, Laxmikant Niketan, Jamal Road, P.O-Bankipore, P.S-Gandhi Maidan, Town & Dist-Patna, Bihar .…… Petitioner Versus 1.The Union of India-through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Department, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, P.O-Shastri Bhawan, P.S-Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 2.The National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, an autonomous Institute of Government of India under the Ministry of Human Resources Department (Department of Higher Education), New Delhi, at: Hatia, P.O. & P.S: Hatia, Town & Dist-Ranchi-843003 (Jharkhand) 3.The Professor I/C-Administration, National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, at: Hatia, P.O. & P.S: Hatia, Town & Dist-Ranchi-843003 (Jharkhand) 4.The Director, National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, at: Hatia, P.O. & P.S: Hatia, Town & Dist-Ranchi-843003 (Jharkhand) 5.Dr. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Not known, at present residing at: National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, at: Hatia, P.O. & P.S: Hatia, Town & Dist-Ranchi-843003 (Jharkhand) …… Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate : Mrs. Surabhi, Advocate For the UOI : Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, C.G.C : Mr. Devanand Kumar, C.G.C For the NIFFT : Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, Advocate ----------- 06/Dated: 13th December, 2022 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice dated 06.09.2013 issued by respondent no.3 by which the contract entered in between the petitioner and the respondent- National Institute of Foundary and Forge Technology as it then was, now National Institute of Advanced Management and Technology (in short NIAMT) has been terminated. For further direction upon the respondents to make payment of the wages as per the bills submitted by the petitioner to enable the petitioner to fulfil its part of obligation under the contract. Further direction has been sought for commanding upon the respondent no.1 to conduct an independent 2 enquiry in the matter of engagement of Security Guards by the Director and Professor In-charge (Administration), NIFT and the money drawn by them in the name of the security maintenance under the respondents. 2. The brief fact of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated, reads hereunder as: The respondents came out with a notice inviting tender vide Ref. No.NIFFT/Tender No.01/2012 dated 27.06.2012 inviting applications from the registered security agencies for providing comprehensive security of the entire campus on outsourcing basis. The petitioner along with the other similarly situated bidders had participated in the bid. The technical bid was opened and the writ petitioner having found to be successful, his financial bid was opened, in which also was found to be successful and thereafter the work order was issued in his favour, as would appear from the approval of the contract in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority vide letter dated 12.12.2012 as per the terms and conditions of the tender documents and as per the rates quoted by the petitioner firm. The writ petitioner had given consent to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the tender document vide his letter dated 18.12.2012 and thereafter the agreement was executed in between the petitioner and the respondent no.2. Under the agreement it was agreed that orders for need based deployment of the labourers/workers shall be submitted by the office of the respondents from time to time. The payment was to be made within 10th of every month and reimbursement of bill was to be made by the institute within one month from the date of submission of bill along with statutory deposit. It was further agreed in between the parties that the first party has to deposit copy of monthly deposit proof of PF and ESI and other 3 statutory payments, if any, to the account section for reimbursement. The registration certificate of EPF, ESI, IT, Service Tax and Labour License in original were produced at the time of agreement before respondent no.3. The writ petitioner, in terms of the agreement arrived in between the parties, had commenced the work by deploying 41security personnel, as per the category as has been reflected in Annexure-5 to the writ petition by which the writ petitioner shown to have issued work order for 29 Civil Guards, 10 Ex- servicemen Guards and 3 Supervisors and as such a total number of 42 persons were required in different positions, out of which 41 persons were belonging to the Institute who were working for several years directly under the control of the respondents. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that although the writ petitioner (establishment) has performed the work in due adherence to the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender coupled with the terms and conditions as agreed in between the parties as assigned in the agreement dated 06.02.2013. But, the monthly bill even after its submission before the respondents has not been disbursed and therefore, a dispute arose which led to submission of repeated request before the authority concerned for disbursement of the amount so that the security personnel who have been deployed in terms of the notice inviting tender be released their remunerations/wages but according to the writ petitioner the amount has not been disbursed, in consequence thereof, the remuneration/wages have not been paid in favour of the security personnel. However, without acting on the basis of terms and conditions of the notice inviting tender in the agreement a notice was issued for termination of contract while the decision taken in that regard on 06.09.2013, as has been appended as Annexure-34 to the writ petition. 4 The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of notice of termination of contract has approached this Court by filing instant writ petition questioning the said decision inter alia on the ground that when there is no laches on the part of the writ petitioner in not complying with the terms and conditions of the contract, rather, it is laches on the part of the respondents who have not disbursed the agreed amount for its onward transmission in favour of the security personnel as agreed in between the parties and based upon the notice inviting tender but the writ petitioner has been penalized by taking such decision of termination of contract by taking recourse of the condition stipulated under Clause-33 of the notice inviting tender. 3. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that while taking such decision of termination of contract the respondents have not considered the fact that the bills have been submitted for its reimbursement of the amount so as to be paid in favour of the security personnel but the said amount has not been paid, therefore, remunerations/wages could not have been paid in favour of the security personnel. But the respondents, instead of taking a positive decision on their end has penalized the writ petitioner by issuing notice of termination of contract and as such the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NIFFT now NIAMT has defended the order passed by the authority concerned as impugned in this writ petition whereby and whereunder a notice of termination of the contract has been issued to be effective after 30 days from the date of issuance of such decision in view of the condition stipulated under Clause 33 of the notice inviting tender. 5 It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the writ petitioner has not complied the statutory obligation to the effect that there is no registration certificate having been produced either under Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 or the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 or other statutory labour laws which was mandatorily to be adhered to by the writ petitioner for protecting the rights of the security personnel have not been produced even though the writ petitioner has agreed under the agreement to produce such certificate. The security personnel having not been paid remuneration/wages made their grievance directly to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Ranchi for redressal of their grievance and on being called upon the respondents have put their appearance before the Regional Labour Commissioner and as per the advice of the Regional Labour Commissioner the monthly remuneration/wages was paid in favour of the security personnel in compliance to the provision of Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, since the wages/remuneration have already been paid in favour of the security personnel on the advice of the Regional Labour Commissioner and as such now there is no reason for the writ petitioner to make a claim for disbursement of the amount in favour of the security personnel which has already been paid by the respondents. Learned counsel, in the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, has submitted that if the decision has been taken by the authority concerned by taking recourse of the condition stipulated under Clause 33 of the notice inviting tender by which the parties are agreed to rescind the contract after giving notice of the period of 30 days in case of violation of either the terms and 6 conditions of the notice inviting tender or the terms and conditions of the agreement. According to the respondents, since, the terms and conditions of the agreement have been flouted so far as it relates to non-submission of registration certificate for the EPF/ESI etc. as even the remunerations/wages had not been paid in favour of the security personnel which finally have been paid in favour of the security personnel under the advice of the Regional Labour Commissioner, therefore, the decision so taken for rescinding the contract cannot be said to suffer from an error. 5. Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, learned C.G.C appearing for the Union of India has submitted that the contesting respondent is National Institute of Foundary and Forge Technology (NIFFT) now NIAMT and Union of India is a formal party herein. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and the order impugned dated 06.09.2013. 7. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that in pursuance to notice inviting tender the writ petitioner has been issued work order to deploy security personnel for the security measure under the respondents. The notice inviting tender stipulates certain conditions, as would appear from Annexure-1 appended to the writ petition under the caption head terms and conditions. It would be evident from Condition No.5 that the security agency should deploy adequate number of personnel so as to cater to the need of NIFFT for round the clock service with provisions for reliever and adequate monitoring and supervision. The other condition which is relevant for the issue which is the subject matter of lis, is as under: 7 Condition No.20 which stipulates that the Security Agency shall be responsible and liable for the payment of following provisions for the personnel engaged by them:  Insurance benefit to the Security Guards as per laws of the Central Government as notified from time to time.  Bonus- As per the laws of the Central Govt.  Medical expenses for any injury, first aid etc. as per the laws of the Central Govt.  Family benefit and amenities: As per the laws of the Central Govt.  Accident benefit: As per the laws of the Central Govt.  Any other type of compensation: As per the laws of the Central Govt.  Death on duty: Compensation as per the laws of the Central Govt. It further appears from Condition No.21 that the Security Agency shall abide by all the laws of land including labour laws (PF, Income Tax, Service Tax or any other extra taxes levied by the State/Central Government) Companies Act, Tax deduction liabilities, welfare measures of its Security Staffs and all other obligations that enjoin in such cases and are not essentially enumerated and defined herein. It has further been stipulated in the aforesaid condition that the onus to fulfil their responsibility shall be exclusively upon the Security Agency and it shall not involve the institute in any way whatsoever, for ready reference, Clause 21 reads hereunder as: “21. The Security Agency shall abide by all the laws of land including labour laws (PF, Income Tax, Service Tax or any other extra taxes levied by the state/central Government) Companies Act, TAX deduction liabilities, welfare measures of its Security Staffs and all other obligations that enjoin in such cases and are not essentially enumerated and defined herein, though any such onus shall be the exclusive responsibility of the Security Agency and it shall not involve the institute in any way whatsoever.” It further appears from Condition No.27 that the Security Agency shall submit the monthly bill every month and the same shall be paid after 8 deducting usual taxes, if any. The payment will be made after completion of one month and not in advance. The Condition No.27 reads hereunder as: “27. The Security Agency shall submit the monthly bill every month and the same shall be paid after deducting usual taxes, if any. The payment will be made after completion of one month and not in advance.” The condition for rescinding/termination of contract is also there by authorizing either of the parties to take steps for termination of contract by serving one month notice. The condition for termination of contract is also referred in Clause 33 by which in case of any violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the same will lead to termination of the job contract with the Security Agency, forfeiture of the earnest money and blacklisting of the Security Agency for future jobs. A notice period of 30 days will be given by the Institute for the termination of the contract. It further appears from Condition No.40 that all the payments of all types to all the Security Personnel by the Security Agency should be made through Bank operating in campus and copy of the bank receipt of payment should be attached along with the bill submitted for payment. EPF, ESI & any other statutory payments should be done and proof of that must be produced along with the monthly bill. The payment to the engaged personnel of the Security Agency through the Bank and statutory payments to the government agencies should be completed by first week of the month. The reimbursement by the institute will be made within 2 weeks of the submission of the above if found satisfactory, for ready reference, the Condition No.40 of the NIT reads hereunder as: “40. All the payments of all types to all the Security Personnel by the Security Agency should be made through Bank operating in campus and copy of the bank receipt of payment should be attached along with the bill submitted for payment. EPF, ESI & any other statutory payments should be done and proof of that must be produced along 9 with the monthly bill. The payment to the engaged personnel of the Security Agency through the Bank and statutory payments to the government agencies should be completed by first week of the month. The reimbursement by the institute will be made within 2 weeks of the submission of the above if found satisfactory.” 8. The writ petitioner having found to be successful and after the acceptance of the work order an agreement was executed in between the writ petitioner and the concerned respondents on 06.02.2013, as would appear from Annexure-4 appended to the writ petition, comprising of certain terms and conditions. The bearing of some of the conditions for the purpose of the lis is that the agency will claim for full amount. A cheque will be issued in favour of the institute along with schedules of: (i) Minimum wages of security personnel (ii) E.P.F (iii) E.S.I contribution and (iv) Bonus to be paid to the individuals Further registration certificate of E.P.F, E.S.I, I.T, Service Tax and Labour License in original will be produced by the contractor at the time of agreement before the competent authority. The writ petitioner has commenced the work. But the grievance has been agitated that as agreed in between the parties and in terms of the condition stipulated in the notice inviting tender the month to month payment has not been disbursed in favour of the writ petitioner unit which ultimately led to non-payment of the monthly remunerations/wages in favour of the security personnel. The further grievance of the writ petitioner is that even though repeated request to that effect was made before the respondents but the amount has not been disbursed and instead of taking any remedial 10 measure a coercive measure has been taken by rescinding the contract vide notice impugned dated 06.09.2013. 9. This Court before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned notice, is required to refer herein that the writ petition has been filed in the pretext of the fact which arises out of a private contract. The law is settled that in the matter of private contract the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 is least to be exercised depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. and Anr. Versus Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd. and Anr., reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470 wherein at paragraph 19, 20 and 21 it has been observed, which reads as under: “19. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that matters/disputes relating to contract cannot be agitated nor terms of the contract can be enforced through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the writ court cannot be a forum to seek any relief based on terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement by the parties. [Vide Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajai Pal Singh and State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd.] 20. In Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil this Court held that a writ cannot lie to resolve a disputed question of fact, particularly to interpret the disputed terms of a contract observing as under: (SCC pp. 298-99, paras 10-11) “10. … The interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be the subject-matter of a writ petition. … If a term of a contract is violated, ordinarily the remedy is not the writ petition under Article 226. We are also unable to agree with the observations of the High Court that the contractor was seeking enforcement of a statutory contract. …. 11. … The contract between the parties is in the realm of private law. It is not a statutory contract. The disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That is a matter for adjudication by a civil court or in arbitration if provided for in the contract. … The contractor should have relegated to other remedies.” 21. It is evident from the above that generally the Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce the contractual obligation. The primary purpose of a writ of mandamus is to 11 protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justitiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. While dealing with a writ petition, the court must exercise discretion, taking into consideration a wide variety of circumstances, inter alia, the facts of the case, the exigency that warrants such exercise of discretion, the consequences of grant or refusal of the writ, and the nature and extent of injury that is likely to ensue by such grant or refusal.” 10. But this Court is also conscious with the position of law about the jurisdiction conferred to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to exercise such power conferred by way of extraordinary jurisdiction which is to be tested depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. This Court, therefore, in order to scrutinize as to whether the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court can be exercised depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and as such is going into the fact and the legality and propriety of the impugned notice. The factual aspect is not in dispute that the writ petitioner has entered into a contract with the concerned respondents as would appear from the agreement as has been appended as Annexure-4 dated 06.02.2013 which incorporates certain conditions making an obligation upon the writ petitioner to comply it, i.e., the registration under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 and other labour laws. It is also stipulated in the agreement that certificates pertaining to the registration of the petitioner unit either under the EPF or under the ESI and other relevant laws will have to be produced before the respondents. Coupled with this, it is also made obligatory to be followed on the part of the writ petitioner that after making payment in favour of the 12 security personnel, the bills will be submitted before the respondents for its reimbursement as would appear from the conditions as quoted and referred hereinabove. 12. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case but no rebuttal reply is there. Counter affidavit reflects that the security personnel have not been paid their wages/remuneration which led them to make an application before the Regional Labour Commissioner for consideration of their grievances. The Regional Labour Commissioner on its own end has called upon the respondents and by taking into consideration the mandate of Section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 the respondents have made payment in favour of the security personnel as would appear from Annexure-B appended to the counter affidavit. The fact about the disbursement of the amount by the respondents as would appear from Annexure-B appended to the counter affidavit has not been disputed. Therefore, this Court is not hesitant in coming to the conclusion that the security personnel have been paid by the respondents directly and not by the writ petitioner. 13. The further position of law is that if any condition has been incorporated in the agreement, the same is required to be followed by the parties as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Jage Ra & Ors. reported in (1980) 3 SCC 599 wherein at paragraph 17 and 18 it has been observed, which reads as under: “17. The judgment in Har Shankar was followed in Sham Lal v. State of Punjab wherein, appellants were the highest bidders in an auction for the sale of country liquor vends at various places in the State of Punjab. The appellants were called upon by the State to pay the amounts which they were liable to pay under the terms of the auction, whereupon they filed writ petitions in the High Court to challenge the demand. Relying upon the passage from Har Shankar extracted above, the court held that the licensees could not be permitted to avoid the contractual obligations voluntarily incurred by them 13 and that therefore the High Court was right in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in their favour. 18. In view of these decisions, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Solicitor General to the maintainability of the writ petitions filed by the respondents has to be upheld. We hold accordingly that the High Court was in error in entertaining the writ petitions for the purpose of examining whether the respondents could avoid their contractual liability by challenging the Rules under which the bids offered by them were accepted and under which they became entitled to conduct their business. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so; and he can challenge the conditions under which he agreed to take the licence, if he finds it commercially inexpedient to conduct his business.” Herein, as would appear from the agreement dated 06.02.2013 which casts a duty upon the writ petitioner to get the petitioner unit registered under the EPF/ESI and other relevant labour laws. But, there is no registration to that effect as was condition before the respondents and the same was one of the reason for terminating the contract as would appear from the impugned notice dated 06.09.2013. Since there is non-adherence of the terms and conditions of the agreement and as such the EPF which casts mandatory duty upon the writ petitioner to subscribe an amount in the respective account under the E.P.F Act which is the mandate of the Employees’ Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and since the Act, 1952 is a beneficial piece of legislation the same is required to be followed without any fail and with all sincerity. Similar is the position with respect to the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and other labour laws. 14. The notice inviting tender also stipulates condition that in case of violation of any terms and conditions contained therein as also the agreement also contains a condition that in case of violation of any terms and conditions the parties have been given right to rescind the contract, however, if there is any fault on the part of the writ petitioner in non- complying the terms and conditions of the contract, the notice is required to 14 be given for termination of the contract to be made effective on expiry of the period of 30 days as would appear from Clause 33 of the notice inviting tender as quoted and referred hereinabove. However, the second party has also been given a right to rescind the contract in case of non-compliance of terms and conditions or breach therein but such contract is to be rescinded after expiry of 60 days as would appear from condition stipulated under Condition No.22 to the notice inviting tender. Herein, it is admitted case of the writ petitioner that no such notice has ever been issued for rescinding the contract if the case of the writ petitioner was that the terms and conditions of the contract has not been followed, if that be so, the question is that why such notice was not been given by the petitioner for rescinding the contract when such condition is available under the notice inviting tender as would appear from Condition No.22 of the notice inviting tender. Rather, herein, it is the respondents who have given notice for termination of contract by taking recourse of condition stipulated under Condition No.33 on the ground of non-adherence of the terms and conditions either of the notice inviting tender or the agreement to the effect that there is no registration either under the EPF or ESI or other relevant labour laws. Further, the security personnel have not been paid their remunerations/wages as agreed to be paid by the writ petitioner which ultimately led the security personnel to make an application before the Regional Labour Commissioner and on whose interference finally the wages/remunerations have been paid in favour of the security personnel as would appear from the communication dated 04.06.2013 appended as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 15. This Court after having discussed the fact hereinabove, has scrutinized the termination notice dated 06.09.2013 and found therefrom that the writ 15 petitioner has not submitted its registration pertaining to EPF, ESI or the code of ESI of the security personnel nor any bill submitted for the month of February, 2013 containing any deposit of EPF or ESI. The question is that when the EPF or the ESI being a beneficial piece of legislation meant for the benefit of the employees who are being covered either under the EPF or the ESI, the same is mandatorily to be adhered to in order to achieve its object and aim which is primarily to be by way of aid in case of any exigency to such employee. The object and intent of the Act has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh vs. Sri T.S. Hariharan reported in (1971) 2 SCC 68 wherein at paragraph 8 it has been laid down that “the basic purpose of providing for provident funds appears to be to make provision for the future of the industrial worker after his retirement or for his dependants in case of his early death. To achieve this ultimate object the Act is designed to cultivate among the workers a spirit of saving something regularly, and also to encourage stabilisation of a steady labour force in the industrial centres. This act has since its initial enactment been amended several times to extend its scope for the benefit of industrial workers”. Similar is the position with respect to the ESI Act which is also by way of piece of beneficial legislation and only to aid the employees who are coming under the fold of ESI there is central legislation to that effect by way of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. If the petitioner unit is not depositing the amount in the statutory account of the EPF then how the very object and intent of the E.P.F Act will be achieved or even the E.S.I Act if there is no statutory deduction and the 16 equal contribution by the establishment under which the employees are working. Since there is no denial by the writ petitioner about its non- registration either under EPF or ESI, since, the bills for the month of February, 2013 which is the part of the paper book clarifies that there is no any proof of deposit of EPF or ESI. Therefore, the allegation which is the basis of rescinding the contract vide communication dated 06.09.2013, the impugned notice, so far as it relates to submission of bill without any proof of EPF deduction or ESI deduction is admitted by the writ petitioner herein. Further the condition in the notice inviting tender is available that the bills should be submitted by the writ petitioner and the same will be disbursed in favour of the writ petitioner on month to month basis and according to the writ petitioner the same has not been adhered to, since, the amount has not been disbursed in favour of the writ petitioner. But, the condition as stipulated in the notice inviting tender so far as it relates to disbursement of the amount is also to be looked into by the disbursing authority with respect to the submission of bills along with the EPF/ ESI certificates, since, the condition in the NIT of the agreement that the contractor, the writ petitioner is to adhere the labour laws including the EPF and the ESI and the same is taken as a ground for issuing impugned order, which cannot be said to be unjustified. 16. The reference of the non-payment of the remunerations/wages in favour of security personnel is also one of the reason for rescinding the contract by issuing notice of termination on 06.09.2013 and finally when the complaint was raised before the Regional Labour Commissioner and on his intervention the wages/remuneration was paid in favour of the security personnel, as would appear from the communication as appended as 17 Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. But the question needs to be taken into consideration herein that even accepting that the monthly remunerations/wages have been paid in favour of the security personnel but there is no reference as to whether there is any statutory deduction under the EPF head or ESI head and on that count also even if the remunerations/wages have been paid, the same cannot be said to be the true compliance of the statutory provision as contained either under EPF or ESI. 17. It further appears from the impugned notice that the reason for terminating the contract has been incorporated therein by making reference that there is no submission of reimbursement bills for its reimbursement. The condition carved out in the notice inviting tender dated 27.06.2012 that it will be the duty of the contractor, the writ petitioner, to submit reimbursement bill for its reimbursement. But, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, has failed to draw attention of this Court to that regard as to whether any reimbursement bills have been submitted for reimbursement, since, no document to that effect has been incorporated in the writ petition. 18. This Court, therefore, after having discussed the factual aspect, is of the view that admittedly the writ petitioner has flouted the terms and conditions of the contract and since there is breach in adherence to the terms and conditions of the contract and in that context the respondents have been conferred with the power to exercise to terminate the contract as would appear from Clause 33 of the notice inviting tender. Therefore, if in this pretext, the impugned notice has been issued for terminating the contract, which according to the considered view of this Court, requires no interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18 19. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and in consequence thereof, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saket/- A.F.R. "