AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ravi, J
The petitioner, a partnership firm, is enlisted as an “A Class” contractor of the Military Engineer Services (hereinafter referred to as MES). MES works under the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India, and they award contracts for several works under the Defence Department. The petitioner was awarded the contract of “Construction Provision of New Training Infrastructure Classrooms and Simulator Room” at ASW School at Naval Base, Kochi by the respondents. After the successful completion of the works, the petitioner submitted Exhibits P8 and P9 pre-final Running Account Receipts (RAR)/bills along with the Exhibit P10 letter claiming labour escalation charges incurred consequent to wage revision effected by the Government of Kerala as per Exhibit P6 notification under the Minimum Wages Act. Clause 63 of the General Conditions of Contract is relied on as it provides for such claims. Clause 63 of Exhibit P3 General Conditions of Contract reads thus:
“63. Reimbursement/refund on variation in price.- If during the progress of the Works the price of any materials required to be incorporated in the Works (not being a material supplied from the G.E.’s stores in accordance with condition 10 hereof) and/or wages of labour increases as a direct result of the coming into force of any fresh law, or statutory rule or order (but not due to any changes in sales tax) and such increase exceeds 10% of the price and/or wages prevailing at the time of acceptance of the tender for the Work and the Contractor thereupon necessarily and properly pays, in respect of that material (incorporated in the Works) such increased price and/or in respect of labour required for the and engaged on the execution of the work such increased wages, then the amount of contract shall accordingly be varied protanto, provided always that any increase so payable is not in the opinion of the C.W.E (whose decision shall be final and binding) attributable to delay in the execution of the contract within the control of the contractor.”
The petitioner relies on the judgment of this court in W.P. (C)No.16832 of 2022, wherein this Court considered the effect of Clause 63 read along with Exhibit P6 Government order whereby the minimum wages were revised and held that the respondents are bound to honour the bills submitted by the petitioner for the differential labour charges. I do not find any reason to take a different view.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Exhibits P8 and P9 bills submitted by the petitioner and take a decision thereon, with specific reference to Clause 63 of Exhibit P3 extracted above. If necessary, the second respondent can call upon the petitioner to prove having paid the escalated wages. If the petitioner is found entitled to the escalated wages, the amount due under Exhibits P8 and P9 bills shall be paid forthwith.