Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhtar Singh vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 9 September, 2013
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-9726-2013 (O&M)
Date of decision:-09.09.2013
Sukhtar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CWP-9744-2013 (O&M)
Sukhtar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. Saurabh Chugh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 to 4 in CWP-9726-2013.
Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 and 4 in CWP-9744-2013.
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent No. 6 in CWP-9726-2013 and
for respondent No. 5 in CWP-9744-2013.
Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No. 7 in CWP-9726-2013.
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate,
and Mr. Ramanpreet Singh, Advocate,
for respondent No. 6 in CWP-9744-2013.
****
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.J. (ORAL)
The controversy qua these two tenders has arisen on account of the fact that the tender floating authority introduced a clause requiring the contractor to have registered himself with the EPF authorities and, thus, having a code number. Learned counsels for the respondents do not dispute that in view of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Singh and others Vs Punjab State CWP-9726-2013 (O&M) 2 CWP-9744-2013 (O&M) Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited and others, 2007 LLJ 631, the liability towards EPF may not be permissible to be shifted by the principal employer being such entities. It is, however, stated that since the contractors often keep changing the persons deployed; the details available only with the contractors and that is the reason the requirement was put that they are registered with the EPF authorities having a code number.
The petitioner had apparently applied for a code number prior to submission of the tender seeing that requirement, but left the concerned column blank. On the other hand, the other successful tenderers stated that they had applied for the code number and their application was pending and copy of that application was enclosed. This was the reason that the petitioner was disqualified.
As of now, all of them are registered with the EPF authorities and have code numbers including the petitioner.
No doubt, there may be some confusion created in the minds of the petitioners arising from the judgement in Ram Singh and others' case (supra), but once a specific column was included, the least which was required for the petitioner was to indicate that he had applied for the code, especially, keeping in mind that it is the own case of the petitioner that he had done so in pursuance of the NIT. Another aspect which weighs with us is that the tender is valid for one year and six months have already lapsed and now we would not like to disturb the tender at this stage.
In view of the aforesaid, no directions as prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted at this stage.
The petition stands accordingly disposed of.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 09.09.2013 Amodh Sharma Amodh 2013.09.10 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh