IMPORTANT POINT
Alternative remedy should be exhausted before filing writ petition.

ORDER :

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.

2) In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the validity of orders dated November 21, 2013 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 22022 of 2013 whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the dispute between the parties arises out of a commercial contract and, therefore, remedy for adjudication thereof by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not available. The High Court has, thus, observed that such a dispute has to be settled either in a suit or in other proceedings in accordance with the contract.

3) The brief facts which are discernible from the record are that the respondents floated a tender, i.e. NIT No. MCL/SBP/GM(TC)/ NIT-514 (hereinafter referred to as 'NIT-514') dated November 1819, 2008 for “transportation of surface miner coal fact to Kanika Railway Siding and transportation of surface miner reject to face to surface miner reject dump of Kulda OCP, Basundhara Garjanbahal Area”. The period of contract for the said NIT was for three years and the estimated value of the work was Rs.63,68,45,000/-(rupees sixty three crores sixty eight lacs and forty five thousand only). The appellant also submitted its bid and, on evaluation thereof, emerged as the Lowest Tenderer (L1). This resulted in the issuance of the letter of acceptance dated March 20, 2009 which was served upon the appellant and the first work order was issued on May 18, 2009. As per the appellant, it is only after 22 months from the date of letter of acceptance i.e. on June 7, 2011, the site was handed over to the appellant. As such the appellant started execution of the contract with effect from June 07, 2011. The contract was performed upto June 06, 2014.

4) A dispute arose between the parties which is about the rate at which payment of revised wages is to be made by the appellant to all contract workers engaged in the mining activities. It originated under the circumstances mentioned hereinafter.

5) It so happened in the Work Order dated May 18, 2009, working details were described pursuant to NIT-514. Clause 37.06 of NIT514 contained Wage Compensation Formula, which will be referred to by us later at the appropriate stage. What is relevant to point out at this stage is that on September 28, 2012, the Central Government issued another notification for the revision of the Minimum Wages in Mines and Establishment falling under the Government of India. It prescribed the minimum wages for workers working above the ground for the categories of unskilled as Rs.186/-, semi-skilled as Rs.231/-, skilled/clerical as Rs.279/-and highly skilled as Rs.324/-. According to the appellant, it has been paying the workers wages at the aforesaid revised rates with effect from January 01, 2013.

6) While the appellant was executing the said work, the first communication in regard to the payment of revised wages was made by the respondents through a letter dated June 21-22, 2013 directing therein that the appellant shall pay to all contract workers engaged in the mining activities, pursuant to NIT-514, the revised wages as per the recommendation of the High Power Committee of Coal India Limited contained in its Circular No. CIL/C-5B/ JBCCI/HPC/566 dated February 18, 2013. In this letter, the respondents had categorically stated that there is no provision of Wage Escalation/Compensation Formula in the contract awarded to the appellant. However, if the appellant had any reservation/ grievance in paying the revised wages to the workers, the appellant ought to submit a written representation.

7) In reply to the aforesaid letter, the appellant, vide letter dated June 29, 2013, intimated the respondents that it is ready and willing to accept the rate derived considering the Wage Compensation Formula as per the clause inserted in the contract of other NITs, the work of which is in progress in the same project (Kulda OCP), even though there is no provision of Wages E