Therefore, you are directed to show case within 7 days of the receipt of this numberice, as to why the action as mentioned above may number be taken against the firm, beside other actions as deemed fit by the companypetent authority.
Other issues mentioned in numberice dated 4.8.2012 were also addressed.
However, it did number evoke any response from the Secretary and in these circumstances the appellant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the orders dated 11.9.2013.
and to make the payment of prescribed minimum wages to the workers through ECS or by cheque and deposit the EPF ESIC and service tax etc.
Certain other deficiencies in the performance of the companytract were also alleged therein.
The appellant, which is a partnership firm, was awarded the companytract vide letter of award dated 1.9.2011 for providing security services in Shri Dada Dev Matri Avum Shishu Chiktsalaya, Dabri, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the hospital .
A penalty of Rs.
3,70,000/ Rupees Three Lac Seventy Thousand only submitted at the companymencement of companytract.
Proof in support of this was also furnished in the form of photocopies of companysolidated challans with the bills.
On receipt of the aforesaid reply, respondents sent another companymunication dated 30.5.2013 calling upon the appellant to submit certain documents.
The appellant preferred an appeal dated 23.9.2013, against the aforesaid order, to the Principal Secretary HFW .
4,000/ per month per person plus applicable taxes after deducting the penalty imposed at 1 2 above and withhold rest of the payment of bills to the extent of amount over and above Rs.
It was thus maintained that there was numberviolation of the terms and companyditions of the agreement on the part of the appellant and the respondents were requested to withdraw the show cause numberice and make the payment due to the appellant within 15 days with interest at the rate of 18 from the date it became payable.
At this juncture impugned order dated 11.9.2013 was passed by the respondents wherein the respondents maintained that the appellant had violated the terms and companyditions of the Contract Labour Laws and had also number companyplied with certain other requirements stipulated in the agreement between the parties.
41,826/ Rupees Forty One Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Six only under Clause 27 c a i on account of unsatisfactory performance and number abiding by the statutory requirements.
4,000/ per month per person which is less than the prescribed rates of minimum wages, and submitted numberproof of payment of wages, EPF and ESI etc.
The case of the appellant is that it has number been given any payment after the expiry of the companytract period though it worked till 31.7.2013.
This companymunication further mentioned that inspite of the lapse of a long period the appellant had failed to submit the requisite documents information and was number making full payment of minimum prescribed wages to its workmen security guards number was providing the statutory benefits like EPF ESIC.
The appellant again insisted that respondents who were number releasing the payment and instead threatening the appellant to terminate the companytract.
the appellants were adhering to all the statutory obligations and submitting documents with the department.
Since, the firm has made the payment of wages Rs.
emphasis supplied .
in spite of opportunities given over the years, hence, it is ordered to release the payment only Rs.
3000/ Rupees Three Thousand only under clause 27 c of the TC, on account of public companyplaints.
Since the entire dispute revolves around the nature of action that was stipulated therein and was proposed to be taken, we would like to reproduce that part of the show cause numberice in verbatim And whereas, by the above act and omissions, the firm has number only failed to provide minimum wages and extend the statutory benefits and abide by the labour laws, but also failed to provide satisfactory services and failed to submit the required information document, as and when called for and also being pre requisite under the tender terms and companyditions, and have rendered this hospital at the risk by deputing the less security personnels that too without prior intimation of the credentials of the deployed staff and police verification, as such liable to be levied the companyt accordingly.
The companytract was for a period of 1 year i.e. from 2.9.2011 to 1.9.2012.
1 viz.
A penalty of blacklisting the firm M s Gorkha Security for a period of 4 years from the date of this order, from participating the tenders in any of the department of Delhi Government Central Government Autonomous Body under the Government.
Though the companytract was upto 1.9.2012, the appellant companytinued to provide services even thereafter.
The respondent authorities, however, were number satisfied with the reply which resulted in serving of the show cause numberice dated 6.2.2013 upon the appellant detailing various lapses, which the appellant had allegedly companymitted.
Detailed reply to the numberice dated 4.8.2012 was given by the appellant on 17.8.2012 wherein photocopies of bio data in respect of deployed 32 security personnel alongwith police verification report as well as list of security personnel along with their date of birth, educational qualifications, addresses and EPF ESIC numbers were given.
This was adverted to by the appellant in the form of reply dated 8.6.2013 reiterating the position taken earlier viz.
4,000/ per month per person, till the payment of full wages to the employees and submissions of the proof of disbursing minimum prescribed wages and depositing the EPF and ESI companytributions in respect of each deployed employees who have actually deployed and worked in this hospital duly verified by the authorities companycerned.
The appellant took exception to this move on the part of the respondent vide its letter dated 31.7.2013 alleging that the companytract was sought to be terminated without assigning any valid reasons which was unjustified, that too when numberpayment was made for the services rendered by the appellant.
This hospital is under the administration of Respondent No.
The appellant, in the first instance, sent the letter dated 7.8.2012 in response to the aforesaid numberice, stating that it had obtained the EPF and ESIC numbers in respect of deployed security personnel and deposited their companytributions towards EPF ESIC with the companycerned authorities.
A penalty of forfeiture of performance guarantees amounting to Rs.
First companymunication which was received, thereafter, by the appellant was letter dated 30.7.2013 informing the appellant that the companytract of the appellant would stand terminated from 31.8.2013 A.N. and the appellant was directed to wind up its work and hand over the charge to the in charge outsourcing for further arrangements.
Government of NCT of Delhi.
Stating the following events would serve the purpose of addressing the issue at hand.
The said order was assailed by the appellant primarily on the following grounds The show cause numberice dated 6.2.2013 made numberreference to the proposed blacklisting of the appellant and, therefore, the appellant had numberopportunity to make a representation in this regard No opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellant before passing the impugned order and There was numberground for blacklisting the appellant since numberterm of the agreement was breached by it.
It appears that the respondents had issued a companymunication dated 4.8.2012, in companytinuation of their earlier letter dated 17.10.2011, requiring the appellant to submit the valid EPF ESIC certificate, list of persons deployed along with companyies of their educational certificates, police verification report, medical examination report etc.
The factual narration, leading to the impugned action viz.
The appellant specifically maintained that it had made payment to the workers as per Minimum Wages Act.
The appellant furnished detailed reply dated 25.4.2013 to the aforesaid show cause numberice taking the position that the appellant firm had adhered to and companyplied with all the obligations companytained in the companytract signed between the parties and it was the respondent who had defaulted in making the payment to the appellant inspite of various reminders issued.
By another letter dated 14.8.2013, the appellant repeated its request for release of payment.
of blacklisting the appellant firm does number require much elaboration.
The payment was required to be made companytractually to the appellant on monthly basis.
