The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for an issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent dated 30.04.2013 insofar as the forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.3,45,208/- is concerned and quash the same and direct the respondents to refund the entire security deposit of Rs.3,45,208/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suspension of the operation of the bus services i.e. 01.09.2011.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that they are carrying a transport services of Lorry, Trailer, Crane and Bus Services and the respondents called for Tender for supply, maintenance and Operation of two numbers of regular bus services inside the Chennai Port Premises for a period of two years. The petitioner was a successful bidder by the proceedings, dated 02.09.2011, on certain terms and conditions. The total contract value for two buses for two years was Rs.34,46,400/-. As per the contract, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.3,44,640/- towards security deposit being the 10% of the total contract value by way of a Demand Draft. The period of contract was from 24.09.2010 to 24.09.2012. The petitioner was operating the buses inside the Port premises from 24.09.2010. On 19.03.2011, the second respondent sent a letter calling upon the petitioner to replace the two buses immediately for the reason that the age of both the buses is more than eight years. As per clause 2.5 of the agreement, dated 27.12.2010, the age of the bus should not be more than eight years with Fitness Certificate duly signed by RTO Authorities for the bus every year during the contract period. The petitioner sent a reply on 20.08.2011 to permit them to operate the buses stating that as per the clause 2.5, the age of the buses should not be more than eight years at the time of awarding the contract and not after the Contract. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 30.04.2013, the second respondent terminated the contract and forfeited the security deposit amount of Rs.3,45,208/- as per the clause 9 of the agreement, dated 27.12.2010.
3. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per clause 9 of the agreement, the contract can be terminated by giving three months notice in writing and the second respondent has got power to terminate the contract for violating the terms and conditions by giving an advance notice of 15 days time. The security deposit can be forfeited if there is a break in service for more than 15 days in any particular month.
4. On a perusal of the impugned order and the agreement dated 27.12.2010, it is clear that there is no contract in service for more than 15 days during the relevant period. In fact, by the communication dated 24.08.2011, the second respondent called upon the petitioner to stop the bus services and only based on such communication, the petitioner stopped the bus services. When the second respondent themselves have asked the petitioner to stop the services, the petitioner cannot be found fault in suspending the service for more than 15 days as contemplated in clause 9 of the agreement. Only at the instance of the second respondent, the bus service was stopped by the petitioner.
5. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the provisions of the clause 9 of the agreement do not apply to the case of the respondents for forfeiting the security deposit. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 30.04.2013, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.3,45,208/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suspension of operation of bus service i.e. 01.09.2011. Since the rate of interest is on the higher side, I am of the view that the petitioner can be awarded the interest at the rate of 8% p.a.. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.3,45,208/- together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of suspension of operation of bus services i.e. 01.09.2011 till the date of actual payment.
6. With the above observations, this writ petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
20.06.2017 Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order. Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kal/ggi To
1. The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
2. The Chief Mechanical Engineer, Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
M.DURAISAMY,J kal/ggi W.P. No.7134 OF 2014 and M.P.NO.1 OF 2014 20.06.2017 is the Director, Sugar Cane Breeding Institute Veerakeralam, Coimbatore has filed this Petition challenging the case vide the Central Government Industrial cum Labour Court, Chennai calling for the records relating to the order passed in industrial dispute No.64 of 2007 challenge made by the petitioner herein and the respondent has not filed counter and one Mohan Raj, 1st respondent after 1993 he went to the Tribunal for raising industrial dispute. He was not worked for almost 14 years. Further when he left the job from the petitioner's Sugar Cane Breeding Institute, he has not come back to take up the work from the petitioner. Further while concealing all these facts whether he was a temporary worker or whether he was qualified to get the temporary status filed by the petition before the Tribunal. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not represent and filing the suitable reply to the .. raised by the respondent/Mohan Raj before the Industiral Labour Court, Chennai.
2. As a result, the Tribunal has passed an order direct the petitioner to reinstate the service forthwith with full backwaes, continuity of service. The petitioner is agreed by prayer-8 of the award passed by the Tribunal. The case of the main grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition. Admittedly he was not employed after 1993 till date, the Industrial dispute was raised in the year 2007. While so the Tribunal also without considering the matter the Tribunal filed misleading made by the petitioner .. was not present or represented. As a result, the exparte order can be passed and direct the petitioner to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with full backwages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he was prepared to file the counter would reply with 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order if the matter is permitted back for contest on merits before the Tribunal, even if direction given to the disposal within two months the same would the exercised could be then for passing the proceedings before the Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for respondent also contended that the the present Writ Petition is not maintainable for simple reason that during the pending matter before the Tribunal is petitioner did not come forward to ..
in proceeding .. replying counter only after the final order passed and directed to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith with full backwages, continuity of service, the present writ petition has filed. Therefore, the Writ petition should not be entertained.
4. Heard the leaned counsel. Admittedly, the Tribunal while allowing and passing this award as directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith with full backwages, continuity of service. If the respondent/Mohan Raj did not even produced .. evidence before the Tribunal he did not worked during the long period from 1993 to 2007. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that such direction directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith with full backwages, continuity of service need not be Court order. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made his submission that he would be filing case reply before the Tribnal within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The matter is set aside the order may remitted back to the Tribunal. The direction to dispose it of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these observations, the above said Writ Petition is allowed and remitted back to the Tribunal. However, the petitioner is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- within a week from today in the name of Mohan Raj failing which the matter is automatically .
16.11.2009 kal Index: Yes/No To The Registrar, Central Industrial Tribunal – Cum – Labour Court, Chennai.
T. RAJA, J.
kal W.P.No.11291 of 2009 16.11.2009 http://www.judis.nic.in