Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

mmj                                                                                       11 of 54





                                                                               wp-8788-18&ors.doc

The said route map assumed importance in as much as it is on the basis of the said route map that the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 decided in what manner and what frequencies and on what routes, would garbage collection trucks ply to pick up Municipal Solid Waste. It is in terms of the agreement and the route map that the Petitioner employed skilled, unskilled and semi skilled and other man power. The Petitioner commenced its operation on 9-3- 2015 and continued to provide services to the Respondent No.2 and the citizens of Navi Mumbai. The Respondent No.1 i.e. the State on 22-1-2016 communicated to all Municipal Corporations including the Respondent No.2 of the Notification dated 24-2-2015 with respect to the new minimum wages. As indicated above it seems that the Respondent No.2 became aware of the Notification only in January 2016 i.e. after execution of the agreement. The Respondent No.3 i.e. Municipal Commissioner on 24-3-2017 issued a circular to all heads of department of the Respondent No.2 directing them to pay minimum wages as per the Notification dated 24-2-2015 issued by the Respondent No.1 to all the contract labour. It was further directed that the said wages are to be considered and applied for all tenders which may be invited in the future. The Petitioner received the said circular dated 24-2-2015 from the Respondent No.2 by which the Petitioner learnt about the decision of the Respondent No.2 to implement the said Notification dated 24-2-2015 in respect of the minimum wages. The Petitioner immediately on 16-6-2017 by a letter informed the Respondent No.2 that the price as fixed per tonne rate mmj 12 of 54 wp-8788-18&ors.doc were on the basis of minimum wages existing as on the date of the bidding and therefore requested the Respondent No.2 to reimburse the difference in the expenses incurred due to the increased minimum wages. The general body of the Respondent No.2 in the meantime had passed two resolutions being Resolution No.1272 dated 15-2-2017 and Resolution No.1668 dated 19- 5-2017. By the said resolutions the Respondent No.2 had principally agreed to provide increased minimum wages to the contract labourers engaged inter alia in the contracts of collection and transportation of solid waste, under the Solid Waste Management Department amongst other departments of the Corporation in line with the Notification dated 24-2-2015. However, the said resolutions in so far as the Petitioner is concerned have not been implemented. 9 It is required to be noted that by Resolution No.1668 of 2017 the Respondent No.2 made budgetary provision from its budgetary expenses towards additional payments to be made to the contract labour on account of the increase in minimum wages as per the Notification dated 24-2-2015. It seems that on 29-5-2017 the Respondent No.2 by internal communication informed the Deputy Commissioner (Solid Waste Management) of the Resolution dated 19-5-2017 passed by the General Body of the Respondent No.2. Inspite of the same the Deputy Commissioner (Solid Waste Management) failed to act as per the Resolution dated 19-5-2017 in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. The Petitioner thereafter made various mmj 13 of 54 wp-8788-18&ors.doc representations to the Deputy Commissioner (Solid Waste Management) interalia requesting him to confirm that the Petitioner would be equally benefited by the Resolutions passed by the Respondent No.2. However, depsite such representations, the Respondent No.2 acting through Deputy Commissioner (Solid Waste Management) did not clarify the stand with respect to the Resolutions passed by the Respondent No.2. In fact on 26-10- 2017 the Respondent No.2 issued a notice making allegations against the Petitioner for not making payments as per the revised minimum wages as per clause 10(d) of the agreement. In view of the fact that the Respondent No.2 failed to clarify its stand with respect to the reimbursement of additional amount and further failed to act as per the stand taken by the Respondent No.2 in its correspondence dated 26-10-2017, it is the case of the Petitioner that it was not in a position to take any steps with respect to the payment of increased wages to its employees. Due to the said inaction on part of the Respondents there was a labour unrest in as much as the labour working with the present Petitioner along with the other labour in the city of Navi Mumbai went on a strike pressing their demands for increased wages as the same were not granted. It is during the said period that the Petitioner learnt that the other similarly placed contractors who had received contracts from the Municipal Solid Waste Department and other Departments mentioned in the General Body Resolutions were given increased wages as resolved by the Corporation. Since some labour was not given benefits there was further mmj 14 of 54 wp-8788-18&ors.doc unrest amongst the labour working in the city of Navi Mumbai for the Petitioner.

13 On behalf of the Respondent No.2 i.e. the NMMC an Affidavit in Reply has been filed by one Mr. Tushar Pawar, Deputy Municipal Commissioner (SWM) Navi Mumbai. It is stated in the said Affidavit in Reply that the tender documents and the covenants in the Agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 make it clear that the entire responsibility of payment of wages in accordance with the relevant labour laws lies solely on the Petitioner. It is alleged that the Petitioner is avoiding to make payments as per the Notification dated 24-2-2015. It is further stated that the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the Resolution No.1668 is mmj 17 of 54 wp-8788-18&ors.doc misplaced. The said Resolution according to the Respondent No.1 merely sought to empower the Municipal Commissioner to take a decision at his level for payment of minimum wages to the contract labour mentioned in the said Resolution. The case of the Petitioner that the rate of Rs.1700 per tonne was calculated on the basis of minimum wages prevailing prior to the Notification dated 24-2-2015, is denied. It is stated that the contract was executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 on 7-3-2015 when the revised minimum wages had already come into effect. It is stated that the Petitioner was fully aware of the consequences of the Notification dated 24-2- 2015 at the time of execution of the contract i.e. on 7-3-2015. The entitlement of the Petitioner based on the Resolution No.1668, is denied. It is stated that the said Resolution is restricted to the 4 items mentioned in the said Resolution. Hence the very applicability of the said Resolution to the Petitioner was sought to be denied. A reference is made to the informal Committee set up by the Respondent No.2 to examine the financial effect of payment of minimum wages as per the Notification dated 24-2-2015, on the Petitioner. It is stated that the said Committee made the enhancement and reported that the Petitioner can easily absorb the liability of payment of minimum wages without incurring losses. It s stated that the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the case of Madvi Brothers, is misplaced, as the said contract envisaged the deployment of such number of labourers as was to be decided by the Respondent No.2. It is denied that what has transpired in the mmj 18 of 54 wp-8788-18&ors.doc Arbitration proceedings between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 has a bearing on the treatment meted out to the Petitioner. 14 An Affidavit in Reply is also filed on behalf of the State Government by one Mr. Rajesh B. Ade Asstt, Commissioner of Labour. It is stated that the responsibility to pay the increased minimum wages as per the Government Notification is of the principal employer and the contractor. It is further stated that the Municipal Corporation was informed vide letter dated 26-4-2018 to pay as per the minimum rates of wages and arrears of the minimum rates of wages to the contract labour in the Solid Waste Management Department.

22 It appears that the Respondent No.1 in or around 22-1-2016 mmj 29 of 54 wp-8788-18&ors.doc communicated the increase in wages which has taken place on account of the Notification dated 24-2-2015 to the Respondent No.2 and directed the Respondent No.2 to implement the same. The Respondent No.2 in turn issued a circular dated 24-3-2017 addressed to the various departments in the Respondent No.2 to implement the increase minimum wages as per the Notification dated 24-2-2015.

32 Now coming to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in A2Z Infraservices Ltd (Supra). In the said case the Petitioner therein i.e. A2Z Infraservices Ltd was awarded the tender for work of mechanized cleaning of coaches, watering of rakes, including cleaning of depot premises and mmj 46 of 54 wp-8788-18&ors.doc provision of On Board Housekeeping Services (OBHS) at three stations in Mumbai Division. The contract amount was Rs.19,76,69,647/- for a period of three years commencing from 11th February 2016. The Petitioner commenced the work and for the said purposes employed 1350 employees. The contract entered into between the Petitioner and the Railways contained a Price Variation Clause (PVC) which provided that in the case of increase in Consumer Price Index (CPI), the reimbursement payable to the Petitioner is suitably increased, so that the Petitioner is not put under financial distress. By Notification dated 19-01-2017 the minimum wages applicable to the employees employed in the schedule employment of sweeping and cleaning have been increased by 40%. The controversy in the Petition was whether the PVC as contained in the agreement would insulate the Petitioner on account of the increase in minimum wages. Since the minimum wage fixation orders are based on the same CPI. The Petitioner i.e. the Contractor made repeated representations pursuant to which a four member Committee was constituted to recommend a suitable alternative for compensating the increase in the minimum wages. The Committee comprising of highly ranked railway officers formulated 5 options, one of which was the existing price variation be frozen till 19-1-2017 and be kept at a base price, and the subsequent increase to be adopted by using minimum wages paid on actual basis as per Notification dated 19-1-2017. Inspite of the said recommendation the proposal was rejected by the Chief Rolling Stock Engineer, CST. The said rejection was on mmj 47 of 54 wp-8788-18&ors.doc the ground that owing to the provisions of the contract and in the back drop of the legal provisions there is no basis for the claim that the railways should reimburse / neutralize full compensation for the increased minimum wages. The said action of the railways was challenged on the ground of being arbitrary.