IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28299 of 2008(R)
1. A.K.G. MEMORIAL LABOUR CONTRACT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
3. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/01/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.28299 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 and seeks a direction to
respondents 1 & 2 to release payment due under Exts.P1 & P2.
Records would show that the petitioner was awarded the contract of
garden maintenance and beautification at Guest House, Sultan
Bathery during the period from 10/08/2007 to 09/08/2008. The
petitioner states that during that period they had executed the work
in discharge of his contractual obligations, and that Exts.P1 & P2
bills submitted by him were recommended for payment, by the 3rd
respondent to the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the payment was
not made, and as a result of which, the petitioner could not engage
it’s workers due to non-availability of funds for payment of wages.
2. According to the petitioner, claiming payment he made
Exts.P4 & P5 representations and that as there was no response to
these representations, Ext.P6 notice was issued on its behalf. To
Ext.P6, the petitioner got Ext.P7 reply, where it was inter alia stated
that the contract was terminated with effect from 13/02/2008. The
petitioner complains that all the statements in Ext.P7 are incorrect.
WP(C) No.28299/2008
-2-
It is also contended that before terminating the contract with effect
from 13/02/2008, the petitioner was not given even a notice.
3. Though the learned Government Pleader raised dispute
about the nature of the performance of the work by the petitioner,
admitted position is that, before terminating the contract awarded
to the petitioner, no notice was issued to them. In my view, the
respondents ought to have issued notice to the petitioner before
terminating the contract and therefore, the termination of the
contract is clearly violative of the Principles of Natural Justice.
Therefore, the termination of the contract awarded to the petitioner
is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to give notice to the
petitioner, give it an opportunity to make their representation in the
matter and thereafter, decide on the issue of cancellation of the
contract awarded to the petitioner.
4. The 1st respondent shall also take a decision on the
monetary claims of the petitioner made as per Exts.P1 & P2.
5. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg