AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.C. Garg, J.—The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of civil constructions. The petitioner company submitted tender for carrying out some construction in the Command Hospital, Chandimandir, Panchkula, district Ambala, Tender of the petitioner was accepted on August 31, 1985. The, work was to be completed as per the terms of the tender i.e. within 30 months or within such extended time as may be granted but not later than May 31, 1991, The case of the petitioner is that a sum of Rs. seven lacs has been illegally deducted from the final bill submitted by the company, on extraneous considerations. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Haryana Government ,by notification issued on October, 11, 1989 revised the minimum wages of the workmen. The petitioner claimed wages for the workmen on the basis of this notification. Payments were made any dis- bursed to the workmen. However, some other employers challenged the notification by filing writ petitions in which this Court on the concession of the Advocate General Haryana decided that the said notification so issued would be effective with effect from January 18, 1990. It is on this ground, the learned counsel submitted that a sum of Rs. seven lacs has been wrongly deducted from the final bill. The petitioner, therefore, by filing of the present writ petition prays for quashiag of order Annexure P8 vide which the petitioner has been informed that the Haryana Government has revised the minimum rates of wages with effect from January 18, 1990 and not with effect from October 18, 1989.
The claim as made in the writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing written statement.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The entire claim made in the writ petition arises out of a non-statutory contract entered into between the parties. The apex Court in Bareilly Development Authority and Another Vs. Ajay Pal Singh and Others, , has observed as under : -
"There is a line of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple."
Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that the relief claimed in the petition did not flow from a non statutory contract. The contract in the present case being purely contractual and non-statutory, and the rights of the parties being governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ can be issued in the present petition, as the relief sought therein only flows from a non statutory contract. The Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.