Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1404
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V.K.JAIN. J.
M/S GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES - PETITIONER
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.- RESPONDENTS
WP(C) No.6718 of 2013
Decided On : 25.10.2013
Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Rarkeshwar Nath and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja, Advs.
Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi with Ms. Sana Ansari., Adv.
The State has the inherent right to blacklist a person and administrative decisions are subject to limited interference unless they are arbitrary or perverse.
Headnote:
Security Services - Breach of Contract - Labour Laws - [EPF, ESIC, Minimum Wages Act, Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, ESI, PF, Workmen’s Compensation Act] - The court discussed the breaches of the terms and conditions of the agreement by the petitioner, including failure to submit requisite documents, non-compliance with labour laws, unsatisfactory performance, and failure to provide satisfactory service. The court also highlighted the power of the State to blacklist a person and the requirement of fair and rational action without arbitrariness. The court emphasized that disputed questions of facts cannot be addressed in a writ petition and interference with administrative decisions is limited unless the decision is arbitrary or perverse.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was awarded a contract to provide security services but continued to provide services beyond the contract period. The respondents directed the petitioner to submit various documents and comply with labour laws. The respondents imposed penalties and blacklisted the petitioner for breaches of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner breached the terms of the contract, failed to comply with labour laws, and provided unsatisfactory service. The court emphasized that the State has the right to blacklist a person and that disputed questions of facts cannot be addressed in a writ petition.
Issues: Breach of contract, compliance with labour laws, imposition of penalties, blacklisting of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Competent Authority has the discretion to decide on breaches of the contract and whether blacklisting is justified. Disputed questions of facts cannot be addressed in a writ petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioner's claims.
V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral) The petitioner before this Court was awarded a contract to provide security services in Shri Dada Dev Matri Avum Shishu Chiktsalaya, Dabri, New Delhi – 110045, for a period of one year with effect from 2.9.2011 to 1.9.2012. The petitioner, however, continued to provide services even thereafter. The case of the petitioner is that it has not been paid for the security services provided by it in terms of the aforesaid contract.
2. Vide notice dated 4.8.2012, the respondents, referring to their earlier letter dated 17.10.2011, directed the petitioner to submit the valid EPF/ESIC certificate, list of persons deployed, along with copies of their educational certificates, police verification report and medical examination report, etc and to make the payment of prescribed minimum wages to the workers through ECS or by cheque and deposit the ESI/PF and service tax etc. In the aforesaid notice, the respondents, inter alia, observed as under:
(i) in spite of the lapse of a long period, the petitioner had failed to submit the requisite document/ information;
(ii) neither the firm is making full payment or minimum prescribed wages nor providing the statutory benefits like EPF and ESI etc to the workmen/ security guards;
(iii) the petitioner has failed to provide the complete list of workers deployed in the hospital and also appointing/ suspending/ transferring the personnel/security guards without any intimation to the hospital administration thereby placing the security of the hospital at a higher risk in the absence of the non-availability of credentials of the deployed security guards;
(iv) the security guards were absent from their place of duty, particularly during the nigh hours, though their presence was shown on the attendance register and sometimes the points fixed for the security check were left unattended;
(v) a number of complaints were received against the security guards alleging demanding illegal gratification in the garb of the tip/baksheesh from the relatives of the patients, who were then allowed to avail un-scheduled entry in the hospital;
(vi) the petitioner has not complied with the Circular dated 21.4.2012 and notice dated 26.6.2012 directing it to make payment through ECS from April-2012 and submit the proof thereof and submit a list of workers deployed in the hospital along with a copy of the registration of each worker;
The petitioner, was, therefore, directed to explain within seven (7) days as to why the action against it be not taken for failure to abide by the terms and conditions and also for violating the labour laws etc.
3. Vide communication dated 7.8.2012, the petitioner informed the respondents (a) that they had obtained EPF& ESIC numbers in respect of deployed security personnel and deposited their contributions towards EPF & ESIC with the concerned authorities and submitted photocopies of consolidated challans with the bills and (b) they had made payment to the workers as per the Minimum Wages Act and had also deposited the contribution of EPF & ESIC;
4. The notice dated 04.08.2012 was replied by the petitioner on 17.8.2012 and along with its reply, the petitioner submitted; (a) photocopies of bio-data in respect of deployed thirty two (32) security personnel along with police verification report, (b) list of security personnel along with their date of birth, educational qualification, addresses and EPF & ESIC numbers. The petitioner also assured that in case of any change/ transfer in future, the same would be informed and that it had instructed all the security personnel not to accept any illegal gratification and not to allow any un-scheduled entry in the hospital. As regards payment through ESC/ Cheque, it was stated that they had directed the personnel to open saving accounts and until such accounts are opened, they had to disburse wages to the workers in cash.
5. Vide show-cause notice dated 6.2.2013, the respondents, inter alia, noted as under:
