THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6581 OF 2010 Dated: 28.06.2010 Between :
Shivamani SC, ST & BC Labour Contract Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Limited, rep. by its President D. Srinivas. ..
Petitioner And 1. Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Karimnagar and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6581 OF 2010 ORDER :
The 1st respondent – Karimnagar Municipal Corporation - issued a tender notice dated 9.11.2009 inviting tenders from the recognized registered Labour Contract Societies and retired P.H. Employees Associations for supply of sanitary workers for attending 14 works specified therein. The petitioner which is a labour contract society states to have submitted its tenders for 11 works. However, ignoring the petitioner’s tenders all the 14 works were awarded to the respondents 3 and 4 herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in awarding the works in question to the respondents 3 and 4 is arbitrary and illegal.
It is contended by the petitioner that as per the tender conditions the works in question should be allotted only to those who had quoted 7.79% less than the contract value and therefore the respondents 3 and 4 who had quoted 7.80% less than the estimated contract value ought not to have been awarded the works in question.
It is alleged that the respondents 3 and 4 were being entrusted the sanitation works for the last 3 years by the 1st respondent Corporation without following the tender process. Thus it is contended that the impugned action of the 1st respondent is arbitrary, illegal apart from being discriminatory.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the original record placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.
The record placed before this Court shows that under the tender notification dated 9.11.2009 tenders were invited for 14 works. The duration of the contract for all the works is 12 months from the date of issue of work order and the estimated contract value has been mentioned against each work. It is clear from the record that the petitioner submitted its tenders for all the 14 works. For 9 works the petitioner quoted 7.79% less than the estimated contract value and for other three works the petitioner quoted 7.79% excess. The respondents 3 and 4 herein also submitted their respective tenders for all the 14 works. The record shows that one M/s. Babu Jagjivan Ram S.T.L.C.M.A. Co-operative Society was also one of the bidders for all the works and its tender being 39.99% less than the estimated contract value was the lowest for all the 14 works. As the said rate would not ensure minimum wages payable to the labourers, the matter was placed before the Standing Committee of the Corporation stating that so as to ensure the labour wages along with E.P.F. and E.S.I., 7.79% less than the estimated contract value is the minimum rate that can ensure the minimum wages to the labourers and therefore the lowest tender can be approved subject to the condition that the tenderer deposits the difference amount i.e., difference between -39.99% and - 7.79% and also depositing the additional security for a period of 3 months. Having considered the issue, the Standing Committee refused to approve the lowest tender (-39.99%) quoted by M/s. Babu Jagjivan Ram S.T.L.C.M.A. Co-operative Society. It was also found by the Standing Committee that except the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 the other tenderers did not have the requisite experience and accordingly their tenders were not taken into consideration. Among the remaining tenderers i.e., the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4, for work Nos. 1 to 6, the respondent No.3 who quoted 7.80% less than the estimated contract value was found to be the lowest bidder and accordingly the said works were allotted to the 3rd respondent. Similarly for Work Nos. 7 to 14, the 4th respondent’s tender being 7.80% less than the estimated contract value, was found to be the lowest and the said works were allotted to the 4th respondent.
The record shows that for works 11, 13 and 14 the petitioner quoted 7.79% excess than the estimated contract value and therefore the petitioner’s bids were not considered. So far as the other works i.e., 1 to 10 and 12 are concerned, the record shows that the petitioner quoted 7.79% less than the estimated contract value, whereas the successful bidders (respondents 3 & 4) quoted 7.80% less than the estimated contract value. Thus apparently the works were allotted to the tenderer who quoted lower than the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the respondents 3 and 4 had satisfied the eligibility criteria.
However it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the tender quoting less than -7.79% were invalid and therefore the Corporation ought to have rejected the tenders of both the respondents 3 and 4 who had quoted 7.80% less than the estimated contract value.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated that in order to ensure the minimum wages to the labour, the contractor should pay the wages to each worker Rs.4,030/- plus 13.61% provident fund plus 4.75% ESI, a total of Rs.4,770/- per month per worker. It is explained that a tender with 7.79% less than estimated contract value or Rs.403/- on Rs.4,030/- is the minimum rate that can ensure the minimum wage of a labourer without touching the original amount. The Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, who is competent to approve the tenders, reviewed and resolved in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 at -7.80% on ensuring minimum wages. The intermediate tenders who quoted in between -39.99% to -7.80% were not having experience and hence they were not considered. The tenders of respondent Nos.3 and 4 i.e., -7.80% being nearer to 7.79% less than estimated contract value were accepted since they were also having experience. The standing committee unanimously passed resolutions accepting the tenders of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 at 7.80% less than the estimated contract value, in the public interest and subject to depositing the difference amount between -7.79% and -7.80%.
It is also relevant to note that there is no condition in the tender schedule to the effect that the tenders quoting less than -7.79% are invalid. As could be seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents and the Circular dated 1.2.2007 issued by the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, the contract labour shall be paid minimum wages as prescribed by the Commissioner of Labour apart from contribution towards provident fund and E.S.I. and it is the duty of the principal employer to ensure payment of minimum wages, etc., to the workers engaged on contract basis. Accordingly, all the Corporations (principal employers) were directed to ensure that the bid amount accepted takes care of the minimum wages as well as P.F. and E.S.I. contributions to the contract labour. That apart an additional 10% supplier commission is also required to be included. It has been found by the 1st respondent Corporation that a tender with 7.79% less than estimated contract value is the minimum rate that can ensure the minimum wages as well as the E.P.F. and E.S.I. contributions to the labourers. That does not mean that there is any prohibition as such to consider all tenders quoting less than -7.79%.
Admittedly the tenders quoted by the respondents 3 and 4 at 7.80% less than estimated contract value is less than the tender quoted by the petitioner at 7.79% less than estimated contract value. It is also not in dispute that the respondents 3 and 4, having executed the works in the past in the same Corporation, possessed the requisite experience. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent thought it fit to accept the lowest quotations of the respondents 3 and 4 on accepting the deposit towards difference amount between -7.79% and -7.80%. The procedure followed by the 1st respondent under no circumstances can be held to be arbitrary or contrary to the tender conditions. Apparently, the allotment of the works in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 is based upon the experience and lowest quotations and at the same time ensuring payment of minimum wages to the contract labour.
For the aforesaid reasons, the contentions of the petitioner are untenable and the writ petition which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs.
G. ROHINI, J.
Dt. 28.06.2010 gbs