Delhi District Court
Shri Ashish Sethi vs Delhi Institute Of Pharmaceutical ... on 14 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS SAVITA RAO, DISTRICT JUDGE
COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SOUTH ,
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CS DJ No. : 697/2018
DLST010047392018
In the matter of :
Ashish Sethi
S/o Late Sh. S.P. Sethi
Proprietor of ESF Securitas
RTB-52, Royal Tower
Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram, Uttar Pradesh
..... Plaintiff
Versus
Delhi Institute of Pharmaceutical
Sciences & Research (DIPSAR)
Through its AR/OFFG. Director/Director
Sector- 3, Pushpa Vihar,
M.B. Road, New Delhi - 110017
........ Defendant
Date of Institution : 19.07.2018
Date of Arguments: 28.05.2025, 04.07.2025 and 21.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 14.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is suit for recovery of Rs. 48,62,642/- (Rs. Forty Eight Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Six Hundred Forty Two only) filed by plaintiff against the defendant on the facts that plaintiff's firm which is engaged in providing security services was awarded the CS DJ No. : 697/2018 1/35 tender for outsourcing security services in Delhi Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, for 17 security guards (unskilled) @ Rs. 3,633/- per person per month and 01 Supervisor (Semi skilled) @ 3,799/- per month as per the rates prevalent on 01.02.2008 as per Minimum Rates of Wages in Delhi.
2. As per law, defendant was required and bound to pay time to time revised Minimum Rates of Wages in the Scheduled Employment covered under the Minimum Wages Act, however defendant did not pay Minimum Rates of Wages to the plaintiff after Gazette Notifications from August 2008 till June 2015. On several occasions, plaintiff raised this issue of payment of Minimum Rates of Wages for 17 security guards and 01 Supervisor (total 18), upon which defendant assured that this issue will be solved and defendant always sought time on one pretext or another. Even after revision of Minimum Rates of Wages, till June 2015, defendant was paying at the rate of Minimum Rates of Wages prevalent in the year May 2008.
3. On the one hand, defendant orally agreed to resolve the issue of payment of Minimum Rates of Wages but on the other hand malafidely, unjustly and without any basis, forced/coerced the plaintiff to continue providing the security services and threatened that failing which defendant shall not clear the bills of the plaintiff as per Minimum Rates of Wages and plaintiff shall also be blacklisted from the list of security agencies.
4. Aggrieved by the non payment of minimum wages, despite repeated requests and reminders to defendant, plaintiff on 03.06.2015 and 29.07.2015 gave intimation/request for withdrawal of security services from the institute which was duly CS DJ No. : 697/2018 2/35 received by defendant. However, defendant vide office order of the institute dated 13.7.2015 (received by the plaintiff in the first week of August), unilaterally extended the period of contract of plaintiff in DIPSAR for a period of six months i.e. from 01.07.2015 to 31.12.2015 as defendant was satisfied with the quality of services of the plaintiff.
5. On 5.8.2015, plaintiff replied the office order of institute dated 13.07.2015 which was duly received by defendant on 06.08.2015. Subsequently, plaintiff was enticed by the defendant to submit fresh tender of outsourcing security services in the institute and was assured that all the issues and balance payment of the plaintiff will be addressed and sorted out after the plaintiff submits the tender. Due to the assurance given by defendant, plaintiff submitted fresh tender of outsourcing security services in the Institute and also deposited Rs. 1,81,180/- as Earnest Money Deposit against tender for providing security services.
6. Thereafter defendant stopped receiving calls of plaintiff and on 09.10.2015, issued a letter/order, whereby earnest money deposit of Rs. 1,81,180/- as well as security deposit in sum of Rs. 40,000/- in respect of agreement dated 29.05.2008, had been forfeited by the defendant and defendant with biased and prejudiced mind also ordered in the said letter/order, not to pay the bill for the month of July 2015 amounting to Rs. 67,000/-.
7. Plaintiff contacted defendant several times but no response was received from it . Legal demand notices dated 15.01.2016 and 16.05.2016 sent by plaintiff to defendant did not yield any result and plaintiff was constrained to file the instant suit.
8. In written statement filed on behalf of defendant, it was stated that plaintiff by filing the present suit proposes to take CS DJ No. : 697/2018 3/35 advantage of his own wrongs. The contractor was engaged in the year 2008 subsequent to floating of tender, for six months w.e.f. 01.04.2008 to 30.9.2008, which was extended from time to time upto July 2015 on mutual consent and on same terms and conditions. Plaintiff raised bills towards payment of wages to security staff deployed on monthly basis, which were regularly paid by the defendant. Plaintiff never raised bills on minimum wages payable to security guards and had been raising the bills as per the contract which rates were more than the minimum wages.
9. It was stated that as per record, plaintiff raised claim for increase in minimum wages only on 21.03.2015 and prior thereto, no claim for revision in minimum wages from the agency is available in the record. Being a Govt. Organization, payment by the department can be made against the bills raised by the agency and no additional payment can be made without any bill/invoice. Also being the employer, it was the sole responsibility of the plaintiff to revise the minimum wages from time to time as per notifications of Labour Department and to claim the same from employer and the defendant is not liable to pay such alleged amounts as neither any claim of revised wages was turned down or denied nor did the defendants compelled the plaintiff to continue in the institute without revision of the minimum wages.
10. It was further stated that as per agreement, plaintiff had to provide 17 security guards for the defendant, however, the number of security guards deployed by the plaintiff fluctuated on month to month basis and plaintiff raised bills as per actual number of security guards deputed by him, which were duly paid by defendant. Defendant was not satisfied with the service CS DJ No. : 697/2018 4/35 provided by the plaintiff and several show cause notices were issued to the plaintiff. Still the contract period was extended for six months as the fresh tender for security services was under
process.
11. It was further stated that in case of breach of any terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties, security deposit of the contractor was liable to be forfeited by the principal employer. Hence, Rs. 2,88,180/- of vendor was forfeited by the department. It was further stated that the figures mentioned by plaintiff are fabricated and without any basis. No amount whatsoever is due to the plaintiff and all the amounts due to the plaintiff stand duly paid. Further, any claim by the plaintiff for revision in the minimum wage at this stage is not maintainable as it is possible that plaintiff after collecting the money from the defendant, may not make the payment to the security guards.
12. In replication, contents of written statement were denied and those of plaint were reiterated and reaffirmed. It was stated that on one hand, defendant is claiming that it is not liable to pay to plaintiff. On the other hand, is apprehending about the possibility that plaintiff may not pay the same to security guards, indicating admission of liability of minimum wages to plaintiff. It was stated that plaintiff has already paid at the rates of minimum wages prevalent from time to time, to the 17 Security Guards and Supervisor.
13. Following issues were framed vide order dated 03.02.2020:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for sum of Rs. 48,62,642/- as prayed for? OPP CS DJ No. : 697/2018 5/35
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed as prayed for? OPD
4. Relief, if any.
14. In plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff Sh. Aashish Sethi examined himself as PW1. He filed affidavit of evidence Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon following documents:-
1. Registration Certificate of ESF Securitas as Ex. PW1/A
2. Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent as Ex. PW1/B (OSR)
3. Original Salary Vouchers of the Security Guards/Supervisor as Ex. PW1/C (colly. 730 in numbers)
4. Minimum rates of wages and its Gazette Notification as Ex. PW1/D (collectively running into 18 pages)
5. Letter dated 03.06.2015 is Ex. PW1/E
6. Letter dated 29.07.2015 by the plaintiff to the defendant as Ex. PW1/F
7. Office order vide F. No. 4/10/2008/DIPSAR/5165-68 dated 13.07.2015 as Ex. PW1/G
8. Copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/H
9. Reply dated 05.08.2015 to the office order of the institute dated 13.07.2015 as Ex. PW1/I
10. Letter dated 04.08.2015 from DIPSAR/institute as Ex. PW1/J
11. Defendant issued a letter/order F. No:4/10/2008/DIPSAR/3633- 3638 dated 09.10.2015 as Ex. PW1/K (running into 3 pages)
12. Copy of complaint dated 05.07.2018 as Mark A (running into 2 pages) (marked as Ex. PW1/L in the affidavit, same as de-exhibited and marked as Mark A)
13. Copy of notice dated 15.01.2016 to the defendant and Labour Commissioner as Ex. PW1/M (running into 7 pages) CS DJ No. : 697/2018 6/35
14. Copy of notice dated 16.05.2016 to the defendant as Ex. PW1/N (running into 10 pages)
15. Original speed post receipts dated 15.01.2016 as Ex. PW1/O (colly.)
16. Original speed post receipts dated 31.05.2016 as Ex. PW1P (collly.)
16. Copy of reply dated 10.02.2016 as Mark B (marked as Ex. PW1/Q in the affidavit, same is de-exhibited and marked as Mark B.)
17. Copy of reminder/request dated 16.05.2016 to the Labour Commissioner as Ex. PW1/R.
15. In defence, Sh. Aditya Kaushik, Section Officer (Legal) working in the office of Defendant was examined as DW1. He filed affidavit of evidence Ex. DW1/A. Documents were Ex.
DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/43 as mentioned in list of documents Ex. DW1/B. Issue-wise findings are as under :
16. Issues No. 1 & 2 : Plaintiff and defendant had entered into agreement for deployment of security staff, vide agreement dated 01.04.2008 Ex. DW1/1. Vide this agreement, principal employer i.e. defendant reserved the right to reduce the period of contract if the services were not found satisfactory or the contractor was found making breach of the terms and conditions of the contract at any time without assigning any reason.
17. Plaintiff continued providing services to the defendanat in terms of the said agreement till July 2015. Vide letter dated 25.03.2015 Ex. DW1/45, plaintiff communicated to the defendant that they had been providing security services without revision of rates, whereas it was responsibility of principal employer to pay current wages to the contractor and same should pass on to labourers. Alongwith this letter, plaintiff also enclosed CS DJ No. : 697/2018 7/35 the work order copies of some of their government clinents who were paying them revised wages from time to time. This letter though was placed on record by defendant, however, as stated, it was not relied upon, therefore, the document was not tendered in chief examination of DW1. In cross examination of DW1, he conceded that plaintiff had sent letter to the defendant requesting to increase the amount of wages vide letter dted 25.03.2015 which was then exhibited as Ex. DW1/45. Vide letter dated 03.06.2015 Ex. PW1/E, plaintiff re-submitted its request for withdrawal of security services. Following was conveyed to defendant:-
" We are sorry to inform you that till date you are not paying minimum wages to us even after giving several reminders.
Thus, it is not possible for us to render our servives to you on the rates you are paying us.
So please take this letter as a notice. After one month, we will withdraw our services as we are unable to render our services on the rate of Rs. 3,633/- per head per month".
18. Vide letter dated 29th July 2015 with reference to the previus letter dated 03.06.2015, plaintiff informed to defendant that no action had been taken on the said letter from their side, therefore plaintiff was withdrawing the services from 01.08.2015. Letter of plaintff dated 03.06.2015 was not responded. Meantime, vide Office Order dated 13.07.2015 Ex. PW1/G (claimed to have been received by plaintiff in the first week of August), the period of contract of ESF Securitas providing security services was extended w.e.f. 01.07.2015 to 31.12.2015 with mention that further extension of the period of contract shall be suject to the services being found satisfactory.
19. Vide letter dated 04.08.2015 Ex. PW1/J with reference to letter dated 29.07.2015, plaintiff's attention was drawn to Clause CS DJ No. : 697/2018 8/35 27 of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement which stipulated that "in case the contractor wants to terminate the contract, he shall have to give three months notice in advance to this effect". In view of the same, withdrawal of the services by the plantiff was stated to be against the terms and conditions of the contract, thereby plaintiff was informed that no payment for the pending bills shall be made if the services were withdrawn in this manner. Plaintiff informed to defendant vide letter dated 05.08.2015 Ex. PW1/I that:
" We have already intimated and withdrawn our services w.e.f. 01.08.2015 as you are not paying minimum wages to us which is mandatory.
Thus your letter No. F.No. 4/10/2008/DIPSAR/5165-68 dated 13 July 2015 stands null and void and we are not responsible for any type of miss happening at your premises".
20. Terms of agreement between the parties, thereby indicate that extension of the agreement with defendant was based upon the satisfactory services provided by the plaintiff. Initially vide letter dated 29.06.2009, plaintiff was informed that the "performance of the security personnel had not been found to be upto the mark, therefore, defendant was being forced to review the contract made with the agency of the plaintiff " . Defendant has placed on record few more letters including letter dated 21.05.2010 vide which, plaintiff was asked to show cause as to why their contract should not be terminated as on the night of 13.5.2010, somebody had forcefully broken the exhaust fan, window grill and entered the kitchen of the Guest House and stolen some of the utensils belonging to Caretakers of the Guest House. Reply furnished by plaintiff was found to be unsatisfactory and the plaintiff was warned vide letter dated 2.8.2010 to be careful in future and to strictly follow the terms CS DJ No. : 697/2018 9/35 and conditions of the contract and it was informed that failing which, the contract shall be terminated.
21. Vide notice dated 20.02.2009, plaintiff was again informed that there was no significant improvement in the performance of the security guards, while also reporting about the absence of the security guards and Security Supervisor from the duties, which was followed by similar notice dated 02.04.2009. Another incident of theft also happened at premises of defendant which was reported and FIR Ex. PW1/H was registered dated 24.12.2014.
22. Relevant clause of agreement and ' Terms and Conditions' are reproduced herein:
Clause 3 : The contractor shall indemnify the Department against all other damages/charges and expenses for which the Government may be held liable or pay on account of the negligence of the contractor or his servants or any person under his control whether in respect of accident injury to the person or damages to the property of any member of the public or any person or in executing the work or otherwise and against all claims and demands thereof.
Clause 7: In case the contractor fails to commence/execute the work as stipulated in the agreement or there is a breach of any terms and conditions of the contract, Principal employer reserves the right to impose the penalty as detailed below:
a. 2% of cost of order/agreement per week, upto 4
week delay.
b. After 4- week delay Principal Employer reserve the
right to cancel the contract and withhold the agreementand get this job be carried out through other agency like CISF/Delhi CS DJ No. : 697/2018 10/35 Police/DG (R) sponsored security agencies in panel with them. The defaulting contractor will be black listed as per clause stated above and difference, if any, will be recovered from the contractor.
c. The security deposited by the contractor shall be forfeited.
23. Clasue 4 & 5 of Terms and Conditions (Annexute-II) reads as under:
Clause 4. The contractor shall compensate in full the loss sustained by the Department on account of any theft, burglary and any other kind of information in Building/Areas given for security. The amount of loss to be compensated by the contractor shall be determined by the Principal Employer or on his behalf by authorized nominee. Some shall be binding on the contractor.
Clause 5.: The contractor shall also be fully responsible for any loss of material and property etc. of DIPSAR attributable to the inelegance or failure of the security personnel in complying with the prescribed procedure. All such losses suffered by the DIPSAR on this be compensated in full by the contractor. The decision of Principal Employer in this regard shall be binding on the contractor.
Clasue 26: Principal Employer has the absolute right to terminate the contract at any time without assigning any reason therefore, Principal employer will also have the right to extend the contract at the same terms and conditions until such time, the new security agency takes over the case fresh tendering is required to the reported.CS DJ No. : 697/2018 11/35
Clause 27. : In case the contractor wants to terminate the contract, he shall have to give three months notice in advance to this effect.
Clause 28. : In case of breach of any of the terms of the agreement, the security deposits of the contractor is liable to be forfeited by the Principal Employer. Any sum of money due, is payable to the contractor including the security deposits refunded to him under the contract, can be appropriated by the Principal Employer against any amount which the contractor may owe to Govt. Department.
Clause 29. : The contractor shall be liable to be fined to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- in each case for any theft in the premises, which are not revered in clause of the contract.
24. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that the show cause notices Ex. DW1/34 to Ex. DW1/37 pertain to year 2008 and not for the period for which plaintiff is claiming in the present suit. He also stated that even after registration of FIR Ex. PW1/H dated 24.12.2014, defendant extended the services of the plaintiff which proves that defendant was fully satisfied with the services of the plaintiff.
25. DW1 admitted that Ex. DW1/33 was prior to the period of claim raised by the plaintiff. He admitted that despite alleged unstatisfactory services, defendant did not terminate the contract. Although denied the suggestion that contract was not terminated as the services provided by the plaintiff were satisfactory. Nevertheless, fact remains that despite issuance of the above noted show cause notices, plaintiff continued providing security services to defendant and the contract of plaintiff was never terminated by defendant. Agreement between the parties was CS DJ No. : 697/2018 12/35 extended from time to time by defendant till the year 2015, when plaintiff itself sought withdrawl of the services, for non payment of minimum wages by defendant. So much so, despite, plaintiff having conveyed to defendant with regard to withdrawal of services, defendant still extended the contract between the parties for further period of six months vide Office Order dated 13.07.2015 Ex. PW1/G.
26. It may be noted that till this time, defendant neither sought termination of the contract, for the alleged non compliance of terms and conditions by the plaintiff or for any lapse in providing security services nor sought appropriation, deduction or forfeiture of any amount payable to the plaintiff for the alleged violations. However, after the plaintiff issued letter dated 03.06.2015 Ex. PW1/E for withdrawl of the services, followed by another letter dated 29.07.2015 Ex. PW1/F, that the defendant decided to take action against the plaintiff with issuance of order dated 09.10.2015, noting that "several thefts had taken place during the past, including theft of 44 UPS batteries and also pertaining to another incident of March 2015 with regard to unauthorized entry of ex-students (boys) in the girls hostel".
27. There was also reference to recovery of amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the security agency for the theft of brass lamp, kept in the auditorium in February 2014 and also with regard to issuance of directions to agency, several times, to improve its performance. Based upon the same, plaintiff was conveyed with regard to its liability for the amount of Rs. 3,22,000/- (Rs. 2,56,000/- being the cost of 26 new batteries and Rs. 66.000/- for 44 stolen batteries @ Rs. 1500/- each). Plaintiff was further informed about its blacklisting from the list of security agencies CS DJ No. : 697/2018 13/35 and with regard to forfeiture of EMD of Rs. 1,81,180/- which was deposited by plaintiff while submitting fresh tender for the outsourcing security services in the institute and also for forfeiture of FDR in sum of Rs. 40,000/- alongwith non payment of bills for the month of July 2015 of Rs. 67,000, all aggregating to Rs. 2,88,180/-.
28. Apparently the order dated 19.10.2015 was an after- thought attempt to put the responsibility upon the plaintiff, for all the alleged incidents, having occurred much prior to the date of issuance of withdrawal of services by plaintiff, which seems to have irked the defendant in taking disproportionate and belated action for recovery, for forfeiture of security deposit and also blacklisting of plaintiff though till that date it was the defendant who had been extending the contract with the plaintiff which had to be based upon the satisfactory performance by the defendant. If the performance of the plaintiff was not satisfactory, the option was available with defendant to take action as per the terms and conditions of the contract and by not extending further contract. Contrary to the same, defendant kept on extending the agreement, but only after issuance of withdrawal notice by the plaintiff that it decided to take action for the alleged past incidents for which no action had been proposed/taken at the relevant time. Belated action of defendant alleging violation of terms and conditions, particularly in light of its own extension of the contract, which was contingent upon satisfactory performance of plaintiff, therefore was unwarranted.
29. Plaintiff further claimed sum of Rs. 5281380/- for recovery of the shortfall in the amount of minimum wages, at the then prevalent rates, as per the Government Notifications. Plaintiff CS DJ No. : 697/2018 14/35 claimed that it had been providing services of 17 Security Guards (Unskilled) @ Rs. 3,633/- per person per month and one Supervisor (Semi skilled) at Rs. 3799/- per month as per the rates prevalent as on 1.2.2008, as per the Minimum Wages Act. As submitted by plaintiff, defendant was required and bound to pay time to time revised minimum wages as per the Scheduled Employment covered under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 but defendant did not pay Minimum rates of wages to the plaintiff even after Gazette Notifications from August 2008 till June 2015. From time to time plaintiff had been insisting upon defendant to make the payment as per the revised minimum rates of wages but defendant was not making the payment which was legally recoverable .
30. Plaintiff asserted that it had paid to the guards and supervisor, the minimum rates of wages, prevalent from time to time and duly notified from Government. PW1 relied upon the salary vouchers of Security Guards/Supervisor Ex. PW1/C (Colly). Plaintiff furnished the chart of Minimum rates of wages applicable as per the Gazette Notifications from time to time, Ex. PW1/D (colly) . According to plaintiff, defendant kept assuring that this issue will be resolved and on this pretext, defendant kept on seeking time. It was deposed that even after revision of Minimum rates of wages till June 2015, defendant had been paying minimum rates of wages for 17 security guards @ Rs. 3,633/- per person per month and one supervisor @ 3,799/- per month. As submitted, plaintiff was also coerced to continue providing secuirty services and was informed that otherwise his bills will not be cleared by the defendant as per the minimum rates of wages and plaintiff was also threatened to be blacklisted.
CS DJ No. : 697/2018 15/3531. Due to non redressal of the grievances of the plaintiff and non payment of minimum wages despite repeated requests and reminders to defendant, plaintiff was constrained to give intimation for withdrawl of security services on 03.06.2015 vide Ex. PW1/E. Ld. Counsel for defendant submitted that plaintiff provided security guards, to be deployed at the defendant's premises and plaintiff was required to pay the wages as per minimum wages act. Defendant cleared the bills so raised by the plaintiff.
32. Ld. counsel for defendant further submitted that since plaintiff alleged to have paid the excess wages to the security guards and also alleged that defendant assured to repay the same, though was not paid by defendant, therefore it is entitled to recover excess wages from defendant, however, the said case of plaintiff has not been proved for the reason that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that:
" (a) any such excess wages were paid by it to the security personnel deployed at defendant's premises.
(b) No document was annexed by the plaintiff to show that plaintiff to show that plaintiff actually paid wages to the security guards as claimed in the suit. After the defendant filed its written statement, plaintiff alongwith its replication filed random salary vouchers to show that that it had paid the wages to the security guards in excess to the invoices raised by it upon the defendant.
However, such alleged salary vouchers have not been proved by the plaintiff which were self generated and fictitious vouchers.
(c) executants of the alleged salary vouchers were not examined i.e. neither the alleged security guards mentioned in the CS DJ No. : 697/2018 16/35 said vouchers nor the officials of the plaintiff who issued the alleged salary vouchers were examined by the plaintiff.
(d) alleged salary vouchers were not executed in presence of PW1. Ld. Counsel for defendant referred to cross examination of PW1 whereby he had stated that Ex. PW1/C was not executed in his presence.
(e) Without prejudice to above, as per section 21 of the Contract Labour Act, it is the primary responsibility of the contractor to pay minimum wages to the contract labour ".
33. Agreement between the parties contains the following stipulations:
Clause 2 : The Principal Employer in consideration of services rendered by Contractor, shall pay to the contractor as per the rates indicated below duly approved by the committee of officers on the basis of rates quoted by the contractor:
(a) Security Supervisor Rs. 3,799/- as per DGR rates
(b) Security Guard Rs. 3,633/-.
(Wages/Salary for security personnel deployed by the contractor will be governed by the rules and regulations and in accordance with the rates based on the minimum wages as per the Delhi Govt. Gazette Notification :- These wages are linked with the minimum wages and hance will be automatically revised as and when the Delhi Govt. revise their minimum wages. The payment of wages/salaries of the security staff will be made by the contractor in the presence of the representative of the deparment . Certificate to this effect will also be issued by the representative of the department that the amount has properly been disbursed to the security staff in accordance with the provisions of minimum wages.
CS DJ No. : 697/2018 17/3534. Further, in terms of clause 23, "Contractor shall comply with all the statutory provisions as laid down under various Labour Laws/Acts/Rules like Minimum Waes, Provident Funds, ESI, Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, Bonus, Gratuity Contract Labour Act and other Labour Laws/ Acts in addition to the provision that contractor shall comply with all legal requirement for obtaining license under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 at his own cost. In case of violation of such statutory provisions under Labour Law by the Contractor, there will not be any liability on Principal Employer and the Contractor will be liable for termination".
35. In cross examnation, PW1 though was not able to recall when plaintiff raised the issue of minimum wages with the defendant, however, sought to clarify that he had visited the premises of the defendant whenever there was revision in the wages around April and December every year and whenever he visited the premises of defendant , he was assured by AAO (Accounts Department) that the issue shall be resolved. He conceded that no document has been placed on record in support of his statement that the defendant had assured that the issue of minimum wages shal be resolved. However, according to him, "
the P.A. of Mr. Pathak must be having the ' Purpose of Visit Slip' of his visit to the defendant". He denied the suggestion that the issue of payment of minimum wages was never raised with the defendant.
36. With regard to allegations of plaintiff that defendant had coerced/presurrized the plaintiff to continue providing security services, he was not able to recall exactly when defedant had forced so, however he sought to clarify that when he visited the CS DJ No. : 697/2018 18/35 defendant with regard to issue of Minimum Wages, he was forced to continue providing security services, else defendant will not clear the bills of the plaintiff as per the minimum rate of wages and he was also told that if plaintiff will not continue providing services, the plaintiff will be blacklisted. He stated that on several occasions, defendant delayed the payment of the bills raised by the plaintiff to force the plaintiff to continue providing the services.
37. PW1 admitted that plaintiff did not take any action against the coercion by the defendant, however submitted that complaint Mark A was submitted with the police. At the same time, he admitted that there was no specific allegation that defendant coerced or threatened the plaintiff that he should continue providing services else payment of the plaintiff shall not be cleared or the defendant shall black list the plaintiff in Mark A.
38. PW1 stated that plaintiff has placed on record all the available salary vouchers with respect to the payment made to the security guards deployed at the defendant's premises. Although he conceded that no document has been placed on record to show that the very same security guards as mentioned in Ex. PW1/C were deployed at the premises of defendant, however sought to clarify that Ex. PW1/C was prepared as per the attendance register maintained by the defendant.
39. According to PW1, register for the security guards deployed at the premises of defendant was being maintained and copy of the attendance register was being forwarded by defendant to the plaintiff. After checking the attendance register, plaintiff used to prepare salary vouchers and made payment to the security guards. Attendance register was not placed on record, though according to CS DJ No. : 697/2018 19/35 plaintiff, copy of the same was available with him. PW1 stated that the salary vouchers were not submitted with the defendant, however he explained that the payments to the security guards were made in presence of the staff of the defendant and bills were raised by the defendant after verifying the attendance register maintained by it, used to clear the bills of the plaintiff.
40. Although PW1 admitted that defendant had duly paid the plaintiff as per the bills raised by it but again stated that the plaintiff was forced to raise these bills according to the minimum wages of 2008. PW1 denied that security guards as named in Ex. PW1/C were not deployed at the premises of the defendant or that Ex. PW1/C was self generated/ fictitious document. Although he was not able to explain the interpolation made under the heading ' receiver signature' at some pages of Ex. PW1/C, however he stated that plaintiff used to make payment in cash to the security guards after withdrawal from its bank account. Bank statement had not been placed on record , although PW1 stated about its availability with him.
41. On the same aspect, DW1 admitted that as per the documents filed by defendant Ex. Dw1/44, plaintiff had communicated that 17 security guards and one supervisor had been deployed by plaintiff for defendant. He also conceded that defendant had not filed any document on record to show that at any point of time, defendant had directed the plaintiff to supply less than 17 security guards and one supervisor. Although he denied that during the contract period, plaintiff had always provided 17 security guards and one supervisor to the defendant . However, this witness referred to letter dated 12.08.2009 Ex. DW1/33 wherein deployment of 13 security guards for the month of May 2019 was mentioned.
CS DJ No. : 697/2018 20/3542. DW1 admitted that requirement for deployment was always 17 security guards and one supervisor and that letter dated Ex. DW1/33, wherein they had mentioned about deployment of 13 security guards, was prior to the claim raised by the plaintiff. He conceded that defendant maintained records i.e. register, attendance chart, name of guards/supervisor provided by the plaintiff and also that defendant had not filed on record any such register, attendance chart etc. He again stated that at present, they are maintaining register, attendance chart, name of guards/supervisor/workers but he was not in position to say if such records were maintained at the time of providing services by plaintiff. He denied that defendant had deliberately not filed the Register, Attendance Chart etc. as it will prove that the vouchers filed by the plaintiff were genuine and the plaintiff had paid to the security guards and supervisor, as per the revised minimum rates of wages.
43. The controversy between the parties narrows down to the entitlement of the plaintiff for the payments made to the Security Guards/Supervisor as per the Minimum Wages notified in Gazette Notifications for the relevant period. Since it is not disputed on record that the bills were raised by the plaintiff as per the rates agreed between the parties at the time of execution of agreement in the year 2008 and the bills had also been cleared by the defendant as per the bills raised by the plaintiff and not as per the notified minimum wages. Plaintiff was required to make the payment to the security guards/supervisor as per the rates of minimum wages based upon the Gazette Notification from time to time is also not the disputed fact on record.
CS DJ No. : 697/2018 21/3544. Ld. counsel for defendant nevertheless sought to put the entire responsibility upon the contractor with reference to section 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. It was submitted that plaintiff being the contractor in the present case is responsible for paying minimum wages to the security guards deployed at defendant's premises and not the defendant and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to seek any amount qua the same from defendant who had admittedly paid to the plaintiff as per the invoices raised by it.
45. Section 21 refers to responsibility for payment of wages whereby:
" 1) A contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages to each worker employed by him as contract labour and such wages shall be paid before the expiry of such period as may be prescribed.
(2) Every principal employer shall nominate a representative duly authorised by him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to certify the amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the authorised representative of the principal employer.
(4) In case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes short payment, then the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in full or the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the contract labour employed by the contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor any contract as a debt payable by the contractor".
46. Following the mandate of section 21, if the contractor fails to pay wages or short pays the workers, the principal employer is contractually liable to make the necessary payments and is also expected to nominate its representative to be present during wage disbursement by the contractor and to certify payments. Principal employer can recover the amount paid to the worker from CS DJ No. : 697/2018 22/35 contractor either by deduction from any outstanding payment or as a debt. At the same time, contractor is primarily responsible for paying wages to the contract workers within the prescribed period. The contractor is further required to ensure that the wages paid are not less than the Minimum Wages fixed by the government as per the Government Notifications. Further contractor is also to ensure timely payment of wages to the workers.
47. In terms of statutory provisions as also narrated in the agreement between the parties, it is correct that the contractor shall be responsible for payment of wages, however this responsibility is further coupled with the responsibility of principal employer to nominate representative to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by the contractors and also to certify the amount paid as wages. PW1 was categorical in his deposition that the payment to the security guards was made in the presence of the staff of the defendant. Further, the duty is cast upon the contractor to make payment of wages and on his failure principal employer shall be liable to make payment of wages and recover the amount so paid from the contractor. Since plaintiff was statutorily duty bound to make the payment of wages to the workers as per the Government rates of Minimum Wages in presence of representative of the defendant, thereby similar duty was upon the defendant to ensure that the minimum wages had been paid by the plaintiff to its workers.
48. Law mandates the payment of minimum wages to workers and the responsibility of the employer to ensure compliance, even if the payment is being made by the contractor. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 outlines the responsibility of both Principal Employer and the Contractor regarding the payment CS DJ No. : 697/2018 23/35 of wages to contract labour. In essence, the principal employer has responsibility to ensure that workers receive the wages they are entitled to even if the contractors failed in their obligations. It is designed to protect workers from exploitation and to ensure that they receive the minimum wages mandated by law. The act serves as protective shield for the rights and welfare of contract labour outlining the clear responsibilities for both Contractor and Principal Employer. Thereby, the employer is responsible to ensure that contract workers receive at least the minimum wages even if the contract with the contractor specify lower amount or that the contractor bills for lesser amount. If the contractor fails to pay minimum wages, principle employer is liable to make the payment and recover the amount from the contractor.
49. In the instant matter, while the disbursement of wages was in the presence of the representative of the defendant, the responsibility of the representative of defendant was also to ensure the payment of minimum wages to the workers deployed by the contractor. While PW1 claimed that he had paid wages as per the minimum wages schedule to the workers in presence of representative of the defendant and though the bills were raised based upon the rates mentioned in the agreement upon the continuous assurance and also due to the coercion and force by the defendant.
50. DW1 was put question pertaining to the necessary requirement of sanction for clearance of the bills. He was asked about requirements or prior approval from HOD or Administrative Secretary for clearance of the bills if there was change in bill, raised for the services rendered to the defendant, to which he answered that there was requirement but denied the suggestion that it was due CS DJ No. : 697/2018 24/35 to the said reason that defendant neither revised the bills of the plaintiff nor acknowledged the same. He was not able to specify about the time taken to get approval if any bill was raised as per the changed circumstances.
51. DW1 denied that account department informed plaintiff that difference in rates ( which were paid by the plaintiff to the guards/supervisor) would be paid to the plaintiff by consolidating bills as arrears. He also denied that after revision of Minimum Wages and after its Gazette Notification, plaintiff of the very first instance raised the bills as per revised minimum rates of wages but the account department of defendant returned the said bills and told plaintiff to raise bills as per the rates mentioned in Ex. DW1/1 as the bills on revised rates were required to be sanctioned for every financial year from the competent authority which would have taken eight to nine months in view of the fact that minimum rates of wages were revised twice annually.
52. This witness was unable to inform if the vouchers Ex. PW1/C were correct and genuine documents or if the amount mentioned in Ex. PW1/C was actually paid to the guards/supervisors by the plaintiff. This witness also denied that as per the contract Ex. DW1/1, defendant was bound and liable to pay minimum wages revised from time to time and as notified in official gazette and more specifically as per calculation sheet filed by the plaintiff. He denied that even after raising issue of payment of minimum wages by the plaintiff, defendant deliberately did not pay the same to the plaintiff. He also denied that defendant was legally required and bound to pay time to time revised minimum wages in the schedule employment, covered under the Minimum Wages Act.
CS DJ No. : 697/2018 25/3553. All the above denials of DW1 were contradictory to the statutory provisions, as noted above. It was bounden duty of the defendant itself, to ensure payment of minimum wages to the workers and also to ensure the receipt of the same by the workers from contractor in presence of the representative of the defendant. DW1 though conceded that no incident came to his knowledge that the plaintiff violated any statutory provisions under Labour Laws/Acts/Rules or any other law applicable for the time being in force when plaintiff provided services to the defendant. He also admitted that plaintiff fulfilled the requirements for getting the tender and for this reason, contract was awarded to the plaintiff and also that contract was awarded to the plaintiff after checking records and documents of the plaintiff and after satisfying the requirements as per the tender document.
54. DW1 itself admitted that defendant cannot make payment less than as prescribed in Minimum Wages Act/Rules and also that none of the security guards or supervisor had ever complained to the defendant that plaintiff was not paying to them according to Minimum Wages prevalent from time to time after Gazette Notifications. He conceded that the contract was awarded on the rates applicable for minimum wages and also that contract could not be awarded for tender submitted below minimum wages while also admitting that defendant was the principal employer for the security guards provided by plaintiff. Defendant had pleaded that plaintiff never raised bills on minimum wages payable to security guards and had been raising the bills as per the contract which rates were more than the minimum wages. The said submission is apparently not correct. The bills being raised by the plaintiff were not at the rates which were more than the minimum wages.
CS DJ No. : 697/2018 26/3555. Despite admission of defendant on record that plaintiff had complied with all the statutory rules and that there was no complaint by any of the worker with regard to receipt of less payment and further the payment to the workers having been made in the presence of representative of the defendant, it is astonishing to note that it is the defendant who instead of ensuring the payment of minimum wages to the contract labour, is itself withholding the amount which was due to the contractor with regard to minimum amount of wages, having been paid to its workers.
56. It is also admitted on record that the wages were disbursed in the presence of the representative of the defendant. Defendant, instead of itself complying with the statutory requirements and to ensure compliance of the statutory rules, rather failed in the duty cast upon it at the cost of contractor, who was required and had paid the minimum wages to its workers, despite having not received the payment of the same from the principal employer i.e. defendant herein. So much so, that lastly plaintiff had to issue letter dated 03.06.2015 Ex. PW1/E with regard to withdrawal of the services for failure of the defendant to make the payment as per the scheduled minimum wages. Plaintiff rather was constrained to issue demand cum legal notice upon defendant with copy to Labour Commissioner as well, followed by another letter dated 16.05.2016 to Labour Commissioner with request for taking immediate appropriate action for non payment of minimum wages, against the defendant.
57. Defendant was called upon vide Ex. DW1/42 from the Office of Deputy Labour Commissioner (District South), Labour Department to submit the register/records for inspection and with regard to completion of irregularities and to submit the compliance CS DJ No. : 697/2018 27/35 report. Ex. DW1/39 was placed on record which referred to all previous claims of the claimants/plaintiff upto January 2013 stood paid and settled. This document was not put to PW1 in cross examination. Ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that this document was also obtained from the plaintiff under the same threat that if he failed to sign, his entire dues shall not be cleared. DW1 was also put the suggestion that Ex. DW1/39 was forcefully obtained from plaintiff under threat that if plaintiff shall not give Ex. DW1/39, plaintiff's present as well as previous bills will not be cleared. DW1 admitted that except for Ex. DW1/39, there was no affidavit of plaintiff regarding receipt of entire payment from the defendant.
58. Though the justification furnished by Ld. counsel for plaintiff contrary to the contents of the document is not acceptable. Nevertheless, in terms of Ex. DW1/39, payment of Rs. 67586/- against the bill no. 525 dated 1.12.2013 was made which was again not as per the notified rates of minimum wages but based upon the contract between the parties. Therefore, despite the admission of the plaintiff , for non payment of the dues as per notified rates of minimum wages, it cannot be said that the entire dues had been cleared. It is also borne out from the record that after the plaintiff had withdrawn its services, defendant made further payments to the workers as per the Notified Minimum Wages. No explanation is furnished on record on behalf of defendant for not ensuring the compliance with regard to payment of minimum wages to the workers deployed by Contractor even if the defendant claims that plaintiff had not made the payment to its workers as per the Notified Minimum Wages.
59. If the defence of defendant is accepted that it made the payment as per the bills raised by the Contractor and not as per the CS DJ No. : 697/2018 28/35 notified minimum wages, contrary to the terms of the agreement and the mandate of law, it is the defendant who has miserably failed in its own duty to ensure the said compliance, to ensure the payment of Notified Minimum Wages to the workers by Contractor. Per contra, plaintiff has been able to establish on record payment of Notified Minimum Wages to the workers in presence of representative of defendant and the defendant having not made the payment to the plaintiff as per the Notified Payments but as per the bills raised by the plaintiff which itself was in contravention of the statutory rules and provisions.
60. Defendant admittedly had made payment to the plaintiff based upon the invoices and not as per the Notified Minimum Wages . Though plaintiff ought to have been more vigilant and ought to have reported the matter to the Senior Officers of the defendant or to the competent authority or the Labour Commissioner, instead of waiting till 2015 under the alleged pressure or coercion/threat of the plaintiff of blacklisting and with non payment of the dues. Nevertheless, plaintiff having complied with statutory rules, particularly pertaining to the payment of notified minimum wages to its workers, is held entitled to receive the balance payment made to the workers, from defendant.
61. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% per annum. There was no specific agreement between the parties for payment of interest at the said rate, which in considered opinion of this court, is on the higher side, considering the prevailing banking rates. Therefore, this court is inclined to grant interest @ 9% p.a.
62. Issue No. 3 : Defendant sought dismissal of the suit of plaintiff also on the ground of limitation and the dispute between the parties being industrial dispute, not falling within the definition CS DJ No. : 697/2018 29/35 of Commercial Disputes. Ld. counsel for defendant submitted that the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of the excess wages allegedly paid by the Plaintiff to the security guards deployed at the Defendant's premises from 01.08.2012 to 31.07.2015. However, the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff on 19.07.2018 much beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 3 years.
63. Ld. counsel for defendant further submitted that even from the plaint, it can be seen that as per the own case of the Plaintiff, the cause of action to file the present case arose on 29.05.2008 whereas the present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff on 19.07.2018 i.e. after 7 years from the date of alleged cause of action. Reliance was placed upon The Trustees of Port of Bombay v. The Premier Automobiles Ltd. & Anr., (1974) 4 SCC 710, wherein it was observed that:
"59...
(2) The starting point of limitation is the accrual of the cause of action..."
64. Plaintiff had continuously been providing the services to the defendant w.e.f. 2008 till July 2015 and had withdrawn the services w.e.f. 01.08.2015. Notice upon the defendant calling upon the payment of balance payment as per Minimum Wages Act had been issued on 03.06.2015 whereby plaintiff also sought withdrawal of the services from the defendant. Letter dated 03.06.2015 was preceded by another letter dated 25.03.2015 with request to defendant for release of the payments as per the revision of rates in the wages. However, defendant issued another office order dated 13.7.2015 extending the services of the plaintiff till 31.12.2015. Plaintiff, nevertheless, provided the services only till July 2015.
CS DJ No. : 697/2018 30/35Defendant did not clear the payment of the last bill . Defendant also withheld the amount of earnest money deposit of Rs. 1,81,180/-, security money of Rs. 40,000/- and payment for the month of July 2015. Security deposit of Rs. 40,000/- deposited vide FDR no. 20214010001681 dated 30.06.2008 was refundable to the plaintiff and in view of the discussion upon issues no. 1 & 2, there was no reason or occasion for the plaintiff to forfeit the earnest money deposit or security deposit of the plaintiff, besides defendant having been held liable for payments till the date of providing of services by the plaintiff.
65. Plaintiff though has claimed non payment of dues since the year 2008 onwards, however, has restricted the claim of payment w.e.f. August 2012. Ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that since the services had been provided till July 2015, therefore, under the confusion with regard to the limitation, the claim against shortfall in amount of wages was made w.e.f. August 2012, though the plaintiff was entitled since the year 2008 onwards. As already noted, since the plaintiff had been continuously providing the services till July 2015, therefore, the cause of action for recovery of the pending dues continued to run till 31st July, 2015. Further, security amount was refundable only upon completion of services i.e. after July 2015. EMD was deposited at later date for fresh tender floated after August 2015 which was forfeited by defendant which is liable to be returned to plaintiff. The suit has been filed in July 2018, therefore, is within the period of limitation.
66. Counsel for defendant further submitted that :
(a) the alleged claims of plaintiff are not based on any commercial contract but the same is based upon the law of minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Therefore, the present dispute is not commercial dispute but an industrial dispute and ought to have been filed before the Industrial Tribunal which ought to be dealt with the statute i.e. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, providing its remedy. As per Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an industrial dispute is defined as "any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers CS DJ No. : 697/2018 31/35 and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person".
(b) In the present case, the Defendant is the principal employer and the Plaintiff is the contractor (employer) and the dispute is between the principal employer and the contractor regarding payment of wages to the workmen and hence, the present dispute is a dispute between employer and employer with respect to the minimum wages of workmen thereby making it an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is a settled law that any dispute regarding the payment of wages is covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(c) The present suit is not a commercial / contractual dispute is also clear from the fact that no agreement has been placed on record in support of the case of the Plaintiff but notifications issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi (please see Gazette Notification @ page no. 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29 and 32 of the plaint). Not a single averment has been made in the plaint alleging breach of contract. Therefore, the contention of the Plaintiff that his claim is based on breach of contract is completely misleading.
(d) Plaintiff had also sent notice dated 15.01.2016, Ex. PW1/M to the Labour Commissioner (please see page no. 46 and 52 of the plaint) with respect to the alleged claims raised by the Plaintiff in the present suit pursuant to which Defendant had also received notices dated 10.06.2016 and 16.06.2016 from the Labour Commissioner thereby assuming its jurisdiction in the matter, which were duly replied by the Defendant vide reply dated 21.07.2016.
(e) Had the present dispute been of a commercial nature, the Plaintiff would not have approached the Labour Commissioner. In fact, following the Plaintiff's representation, the Labour Commissioner intervened, issued notices to the Defendants, and assumed jurisdiction over the dispute. However, instead of pursuing the matter before the Labour Commissioner having jurisdiction, the Plaintiff has chosen to file this frivolous suit.
(f) Furthermore, no agreement has been placed on record in support of the Plaintiff's claim. Rather, various office orders issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, along with the correspondence exchanged between the Plaintiff and the Defendant submitted before the Labour Commissioner have been CS DJ No. : 697/2018 32/35 placed in support of the claim. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the claim of the Plaintiff is entirely based on the provisions of minimum wages law which is precisely why the Labour Commissioner assumed jurisdiction in the matter.
(g) PW-1 has himself admitted in his cross examination dated 25.09.2024 that the present suit is based on law of minimum wages but not on any commercial contract. Therefore, the dispute of payment of minimum wages to the security guards deployed by the Plaintiff at the Defendant's premises is an industrial dispute and not a commercial dispute and the Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.
Reliance was placed upon Rajasthan State Road Transport and Ors. v. Zakir Hussain (2005) 7 SCC 447, wherein it was held that in case of industrial disputes, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts must be held to have been impliedly barred and the appropriate forum for resolution of such dispute is the forum constituted under the Act. Therefore, it is duty of Courts to reject a suit which does not fall under its jurisdiction.
Reliance was further placed upon Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad & Anr., (2002) 2 SCC 542, wherein it was held that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try and entertain an industrial dispute.
(h) The order dated 27.03.2023 on jurisdiction was passed on an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC 1908 which is an independent and special remedy decided only on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed with it. It is a settled law that the defence of the Defendant or its written statement or the documents filed along with it are not to be seen at the time of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 1908 as the same only considers prima facie and as such the Hon'ble Court is not precluded from considering the said issue after considering the written statement and the documents and the trial. In the present case, the Defendant has filed notices dated 10.06.2016 and 16.06.2016 received by Labour Commissioner to show that the Labour Commissioner has taken jurisdiction over the matter because if it did not have the jurisdiction, notices could not have been sent to the Defendant. The said documents were not considered at the time of application because the same only considers the averments made in the plaint and not the documents of the Defendant.
CS DJ No. : 697/2018 33/35(i) This court can decide the issue of jurisdiction in the judgment particularly in view of the specific issue framed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.02.2020. Reliance was placed upon following:
Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead Through Legal Representatives & Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 366 , wherein it was observed that :
"23.2 The remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial on the basis of evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision".
R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu & Anr., (2016) 14 SCC 275 "4... The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial...."
The only restriction is that the consideration of the application for rejection should not be on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or on the basis of the allegations in the application for rejection of the plaint. The court has to consider only the plaint as a whole, and in case, the entire plaint comes under the situations covered by Order VII Rule 11 (a) to (f) of the CPC, the same has to be rejected."
(j) In light of the above paras and judgments, it is more than clear claims of the plaintiff is based not on contract but the same is based upon the law of minimum wages and therefore, the dispute raised in the present suit is an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the alleged claim. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed " .
67. It may be noted that defendant had earlier moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and had taken the objection pertaining to non maintainability of the suit as commercial dispute. Vide order dated 27.5.2023, it was noted that plaintiff by way of present suit was seeking enforcement of contract, where under man power was supplied by him to the defendant company on the stipulation that they will be paid minimum wages as per the Delhi Government Gazette Notification(s) issued from time to time, as per the agreement for providing security services executed between the CS DJ No. : 697/2018 34/35 parties. It was noted that the present dispute was not the industrial dispute nor it was for enforcement of any right under the Industrial Dispute Act and the remedy of plaintiff only lies in the civil court and the dispute between the parties was covered by section 2 (1) (c) (xviii) of Commercial Courts Act. The objection having already been dealt with by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 27.03.2023, it is not open for the defendant to re-agitate the same issue. This issue stands decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
68. Relief : Instant suit is accordingly decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 31,57,560/- (Rs. Thirty One Lac Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Sixty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 01.08.2015 till realization.
69. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. After completion of formalities, file be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
savita savita rao
Date:
rao 2025.08.14
14:54:29
+0530
Announced in the open (SAVITA RAO)
court on 14.08.2025 DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-01
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CS DJ No. : 697/2018 35/35