M/s. Providence Protection and Detectives, vs Union of India

Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru

The petitioner described himself as a Providence Protection and Detectives represented by its Manager has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the third respondent BSNL to implement the revised minimum wages fixed by the second respondent to settle the payment of arrears and leave relief payment together with service charges and service tax applicable as per DGR guidelines with interest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to state the nature of the constitution of the petitioner. In the affidavit, there is no description of the petitioner and in the typed set also there is no certificate showing the correct status of the petitioner and on the short ground the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

In any event, when the matter came up on 05.01.2011, notice of motion was ordered. On notice from this Court, the third respondent filed a counter affidavit. In the counter counter, it was stated that it is a matter of contract between the petitioner and the third respondent and the contract entered into between the parties and also provides for arbitration clause and therefore, if the petitioner aggrieved by the non payment of extra remuneration, he has to avail remedy only by way of arbitration. Apart from the objection with reference to the maintainability, on the factual dispute, in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it was stated as follows:

I respectfully submit that it is specifically denied that they got paid leave relief at 28.9% upto June 2009 and further denied that there was several representation regarding the claim. Several communications were replied properly and through letter dated 25.08.2009 we have conveyed the complaint received from the security guards to the petitioner and also requested the petitioner to furnish the reasons justifications for the complaints therein and likewise in letter dated 25.11.2009 and 01.02.2010 we have requested the petitioner to comply some items of procedure as prescribed by the 2nd respondent and so far the petitioner did not come forward to settle those discrepancies noted therein. With respect to the Leave Relief Wages a communication was sent to the petitioner on 20.01.2010 and till the period of agreement petitioner has not complied with the same. The 2nd respondent by the letter dated 28.06.2010 as well as 27.07.2010 confirmed the main condition for the payment of Leave Relief. We have instructed the petitioner to follow DGR guidelines to engage additional security guards as leave reserve. Without complying the same, the petitioner sent representation. From the above said factual aspects it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the 2nd respondent guidelines which is sine quo non in respect of the service of security guards and without complying with the guidelines, the petitioner cannot legally entitle to claim anything from this respondent.

In the light of the stand taken by the third respondent, the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.