R.S.A. No. 2872 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) R.S.A. No. 2872 of 2008
Date of decision: September 8, 2008
M/s Kurukshetra Traders and another
.. Appellants.
v.
Food Corporation of India and others
.. Respondents
(2) R.S.A. No. 2873 of 2008
M/s Kurukshetra Traders and another
.. Appellants.
v.
Food Corporation of India and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 2872 and 2873 of 2008,
as the same arise out of a common judgment dated 14.10.2003, passed by
District Judge, Kurukshetra. The facts have been extracted from R.S.A. No.
2872 of 2008.
The appellants-defendants are in appeal before this Court
against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below,
whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed.
Briefly, the facts are that the respondent filed a suit for
recovery of Rs. 6,68,531/- along with interest from the appellants on
account of work done by the respondent at the risk and cost of the
appellants. The respondent invited tenders for appointment of contractors
for handling and transport work at Kurukshetra on 23.3.1987. The
appellants participated in the tendering process and being the lowest, their
tender was accepted. The appellants though initially carried out the work,
but later on failed to provide necessary service to the respondent as per the
R.S.A. No. 2872 of 2008 [2]
terms of the contract w.e.f. 21.9.1988. As a result thereof, the respondent
did not have any choice but to invite fresh tenders for appointment of ad hoc
conctractors for handling and transport work at the Food Corporation of
India Godown, Kurukshetra at the risk and cost of the appellants. The
appellants filed a suit for injunction in the Civil Court at Kurukshetra,
where interim injunction was granted. However, the same was vacated in
appeal by the respondent. The respondent awarded the contract to another
contractor for the remaining period. As a result thereof, the respondent
incurred additional cost of Rs. 6,97,412/-. After adjusting certain pending
claims of the appellants, an amount of Rs. 6,68,531/- was found to be
recoverable from the appellants along with interest. It is for recovery of this
amount that the suit was filed. The appellants also filed counter claim in the
suit.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as there was
subsequent change in the circumstances on account of an order passed by
this Court in a writ petition filed by the labour already working with the
respondent, it became impossible for the appellants to continue working on
the terms and conditions initially agreed upon, as they had to pay much
more amount to the labour employed through the respondent than the rate at
which they had engaged the labour, which made the contract totally
unviable.
However, the contention is totally misconceived. The learned
Court below considered this aspect of the matter and held that a perusal of
telegram (Ex. P.1) vide which the appellants accepted the terms of the
contract shows that there was a specific condition incorporated therein that
the contract shall be subject to the decision of the Court in case of abolition
of the contract system of the labour. In this view of the matter, the
appellants were bound by any order passed by this Court in the writ petition
filed by the labour working with the respondent, notwithstanding that the
appellants were not party therein. The breach of the contract by the
appellants is otherwise not disputed. Even otherwise, the contention raised
by the learned counsel for the appellants that they had to pay much more to
the labour employed through the respondent also could not be proved in
evidence led by them.
The counter claim filed by the appellants was rejected for the
R.S.A. No. 2872 of 2008 [3]
reason that they had not been able to lead any evidence to prove their claim
as against the evidence led by the respondent.
A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below shows that the
findings recorded are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no
question of law, much less a substantial question of law.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
September 08, 2008
mk