Telangana High Court
Jatavath Padma vs State Of Telangana on 30 October, 2023
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.2137 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in calling for the tenders by imposing condition for payment of wages less than the minimum wages as paid to the labourers, as being illegal, arbitrary, unfair labour practice and offends the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for General Administration appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Smt.D.Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record.
3. Petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent had issued a tender document dt.30.05.2022 to engage contractors for providing house keeping and sanitation services for the purpose of removing and transportation of solid waste in BPP area, including Lumbini Park, NTR Gardens, Sanjeevaiah Park, PVNR Marg, Tankbund Road, NTR Marg & NTR Memorial and Buddha Bhavan Road for a period of two years; and that in the form of price bid, it has been mentioned that the labour engaged for cleaning and sweeping would be paid monthly remuneration of Rs.12,424.80 paise, including ESI and EPF only. 2
4. Petitioners further contend that the said prescription of Rs.12,424.80 paise is less than the minimum wages prescribed; and that the prescription of the monthly remuneration amount is less than the amount directed to be paid for contract/outsourcing services under G.O.Ms.No.60, Finance (HRM.VII) Department dt.11.06.2021, wherein the Government on review of the monthly remuneration for contract/outsourcing services had enhanced the same by 30% to Rs.15,600/-, Rs.19,500/- and Rs.22,750./- for categories I, II & III, respectively, for all types of services engaged on contract/outsourcing basis from June, 2021, payable in July, 2021.
5. Petitioners further contend that since, the petitioners provide services to the 2nd respondent through the contractor, on outsourcing basis and the 2nd respondent being an organization/undertaking of the State, the prescription of lesser monthly remuneration in the price bid issued under the tender dt.30.05.2022, is illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.60 dt.11.06.2021.
6. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit.
7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent by drawing the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.60 dt.11.06.2021, would submit that the aforesaid G.O. would be applicable 3 to the categories of services engaged on contract/outsourcing basis in terms of the orders issued, vide G.O.Rt.No.4271, Finance (SMPC) Department, dt.01.11.2008, which services are continued under Government Orders from time to time.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent would further submit that since the services of the petitioners were engaged by the 2nd respondent through their employer, but not under the aforesaid G.O.Rt.No.4271, the benefit of the said G.O.Ms.No.60, cannot be extended to the petitioners, nor the petitioners can claim any benefit thereunder.
9. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that in order to be eligible for the benefit under the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.60 dt.11.06.2021 read with G.O.Rt.No.4271 dt.01.11.2008, the selection process of the outsourcing agency should have been undertaken with the permission of the Government in Finance Department for engaging such outsourcing agency.
10. Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that in the facts of the present case, the 2nd respondent had issued tender on 30.05.2022 inviting tenders from interested contractors engaged in providing house keeping and sanitation services, the petitioners who are employees of the contractor cannot be continued on contract/outsourcing basis, in terms 4 G.O.Rt.No.4271 dt.01.11.2008, and thus, the claim of the petitioners is misconceived.
11. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that G.O.Ms.No.60 dt.11.06.2021 has not been adopted by the 2nd respondent to enable the petitioners to claim benefit thereunder.
12. I have taken note of the contentions urged.
13. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.60 dt.11.06.2021 would show that the same was intended for fixing remuneration for contract/outsourcing services, which hitherto were engaged in terms of G.O.Rt.No.4271 dt.01.11.2008 and continuing thereafter, with Government Orders from time to time.
14. It is not shown to this Court that the petitioners' services were engaged through the contractor in terms of G.O.Rt.No.4271 dt.01.11.2008, at any time prior thereto and being continued from time to time under Government Orders. In the absence of the petitioners showing to this Court of their services being availed by complying with the condition of G.O.Rt.No.4271, the benefit of enhanced monthly remuneration under G.O.Ms.No.60 dt.11.06.2021 cannot be claimed and granted. Thus, the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to be paid the enhanced monthly remuneration in terms of G.O.Ms.No.60 dt.11.06.2021 is misconceived.
5
15. Further, though the petitioners' claim that the amount being shown in the price bid payable i.e. sum of Rs.12,424.80 ps., is less than the minimum wages prescribed, no foundational facts are placed before this Court to show as to what was the minimum wages notified by the Government during the period from May, 2022 onwards, for this Court to conclude that the amount of Rs.12,424.80 ps. shown as payable is less than the minimum wages.
16. In the absence of the petitioners making out a case in that regard, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
17. In view of the above the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:30.10.2023 GJ 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.2137 of 2023 30.10.2023 GJ 7