Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The question of submission of the certificate for satisfactory completion of the work has been raised only when the case is being heard by this tribunal which I regard as an after thought only to justify the unreasonable withholding of the security deposit. In view of the above I hold that there was no reasonable ground to withhold the refund of the security deposit.

11. Regarding the dues towards the Provident Fund the claimant has contended that the as per the agreement the liability of making the payment of the employees contribution, administration charges etc. under the CMPF scheme and DLI scheme rested with the contractor and they complied with all the provisions of the scheme. In case of failure of the claimant to abide by the provisions of CMPF Act and the rules made thereunder the statutory authorities would have initiated direct action against the claimant. The respondent has not come forward with a single document in support of any action initiated by CMPF authorities against the claimant on account of breach of CMPF provisions. Further respondent has not produced even a single document issued by the CMPF authorities whereby and whereunder the said authorities had directed the respondent to make payments towards any alleged CMPF dues as the principal employer. CMPF authorities have neither written any letter to the claimant directly nor to the respondent demanding any dues towards CMPF. The counter claim towards CMPF dues therefore has no leg to stand and needs to be rejected.

12. I agree with the aforesaid contention of the claimant. The respondent has not produced any notice or any letter from CMPF authorities directing the claimant or the respondent to make the payment of PF dues. On perusal of the statement submitted by the respondent making the counter claim of Rs.20,16,011.00, I find that this statement has been prepared clearly on hypothetical basis. In view of the above the counter claim of the respondent towards the CMPF dues deserves no consideration and is rejected.

I further find that the question of jurisdiction was raised during the arbitration proceeding, and, after detail discussion, the learned Arbitrator hold that this arbitration tribunal has full jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputes related to the refund of security deposit. The learned Arbitrator further discussed the question of submission of the certificate for satisfactory completion of the work, and discussing the facts, circumstances, and action taken by parties during the execution of work under running contract, the learned Arbitrator hold that there was no reasonable ground to withhold the refund of the security deposit. On the issue relating to the liability of making the payment of the employee contribution, administration charges etc. under the CMPF scheme and DLI scheme, the learned Arbitrator discussed all facts and circumstance and come to the conclusion that the counter claim towards CMPF dues has no leg to stand and needs to be rejected. In para 13 of the award, the learned Arbitrator observed that "regarding the respondent's contention that there cannot be two proceedings in the same contract, one for release of withheld amount and other for refund of the security deposit, the claimant has rightly contended that the objection of the respondent has already been resolved by the consent of the parties in the proceeding held on 22.09.2009 (sitting no. 54) in case no. AA 32/2002. On perusal of the proceeding held on 22.09.2009 (sitting no. 54), I find that both the parties have agreed that the dispute pertaining to refund of security deposit should also be adjudicated upon simultaneously with the dispute relating to 10% kept back amount. Therefore, raising the issue of two parallel proceedings in the same contract and between same parties is meaningless and respondent is estopped from raising this issue.