J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 18th day of January, 2021 The petitioner, who submitted his bid pursuant to Ext.P1 Notification Inviting Tender published by the 1st respondent, seeks to set aside Ext.P5 and to declare that the decision of the 2nd respondent to permit the participation of bidders, who quoted rates much below the wages determined under the Minimum Wages Act, is illegal and arbitrary.

2. On 08.09.2020, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 Notice Inviting Tender through e-procurement for outsourcing manpower on contract basis at ICAR-CPCRI Kasaragod for one year (2020-2021). Clause 11(26) of Ext.P1-NIT is as follows:-

“Minimum wages shall be paid to the workers by the Agency/Contractor at the rate fixed by the State Govt./Central Labour Commissioner whichever is the higher rate as per the Minimum Wages Act. The contractor/Firm shall also pay all such benefits to its employees as envisaged under various acts and laws like ESI Act, EPF & MP Act, Payment of Bonus Act, Taxes etc. The contractor shall also ensure compliance of all laws and/or to be made applicable and ICAR shall not be liable for the same and the contractor/firm shall will indemnify ICAR-CPCRI, Kasaragod in all respects. The contractor/firm would sign an undertaking as per Proforma every month for compliance of the provisions of contract labour Act, Rules and other Law applicable along with the monthly bill.”

Annexure-V Tender Schedule indicated that the minimum wage for Agriculture Works of Hard Nature is ₹490/- for 08 hours and Agriculture Works of Light Nature is ₹410/- for 08 hours. Ext.P1 made it clear that the minimum wages mentioned is based on prevailing Kerala State Government Wages for Agricultural Operations 2017 and that the ICAR- CPCRI, Kasaragod shall not bear any extra charge other than the statutory admissible contributions.

3. The petitioner would submit that 10 persons including the petitioner and the 4th respondent responded to Ext.P1 notification. The Technical Evaluation Committee cleared the bids of the petitioner, the 4th respondent and four others, and rejected the bids of all others.

4. According to the petitioner, disregarding the conditions in the NIT, the 1st respondent accepted the quote of the 4th respondent on 20.10.2020 as per Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is highly arbitrary and illegal for various reasons, contended the petitioner.

5. The first and foremost submission of the petitioner is that the minimum wages prescribed by the Government of Kerala consist of basic wages as well as Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA). According to the petitioner, inclusive of VDA, the minimum wages for Agriculture Works of Hard Nature would be ₹613/- for 08 hours and for Agriculture Works of Light Nature, the minimum wages will be ₹533/- for 08 hours. Therefore, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the bids of only those persons who quoted amounts above the said rates. Only the petitioner and one M/s.New Malabar Ex-SM quoted amounts equal to or above the minimum wages inclusive of VDA. However, the 1st respondent illegally proceeded with the finalisation of tenders and awarded the tender to the 4th respondent for the reason that he was the person who quoted the lowest service charges. The petitioner argued that the work cannot be assigned to a bidder for the sole reason of quoting the lowest service charges, when the wages quoted by that bidder is below minimum wages.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner put forth many other arguments forcefully to unsettle Ext.P5, I do not deem it necessary to consider all those arguments in view of my findings on the legality of award of contract as per Ext.P5, based on the issue of minimum wages.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent filed counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit and opposed the arguments of the petitioner. According to the 1st respondent, a pre-bid meeting was conducted on 21.08.2020 and it was communicated to the participants that the competiti