Kiran Electricals, Vaijapur, Aurangabad v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

G.A.Ghule [P.A.] 1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

Writ Petition No.7928 Of 2014.

KIRAN ELECTRICALS, VAIJAPUR, AURANGABAD.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS....

Appearance => Mr. Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the State of Maharashtra. Mr. Anil Gaikwad, Advocate for Resp.No.3.

Mr. S.V. Gundre, Advocate h/for Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

CORAM

:

B.P. Dharmadhikari & A.M. Badar, JJ.

DATE :

23rd December, 2014.

Per Court :- Challenge is to tender floated by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, [ In short, M.S.E.D.C.Ltd. ] for monthly meter reading of R&C consumer through Digital photography, data punching/entry and creating of CD of meter reading, IR meter reading, HHU and Bill distribution of consumers for Vaijapur - I Sub Division under Kannad Division. The petitioner is found not eligible, as he did not possess Provident Fund Registration Certificate under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952.

[2] Mr. Ajinkya Reddy, learned counsel submitted that since the number of employees working with the petitioner is less than twenty

2/3 therefore, the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 are not applicable to the present petitioner as such, registration under E.P.F. Act is not must and earlier also the petitioner has carried out the similar work with the Respondents. In the alternatively, he points out that, liability to pay the provident fund is principally that of Principal employer i.e. M.S.E.D.C. Ltd. Lastly, he submits other two bidders namely (i) Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Magasvargiya Sushikshit Berojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Bhimnagar, Bhavsingpura, Aurangabad and (ii) Vidyut Mandal, Kannad did not have registration as electrical contractors. [3] During hearing we found that when technical bid was opened the petitioner was absent.

[4] In so far as registration as electrical contractor is concerned, the bidder is required to be registered as contractor. The stipulation in technical bid is about possession of electrical contractor licence does not have bearing here. There is no such requirement in the tender documents. [5] The responsibility or liability to pay the provident fund contribution may be required to be shouldered by Principal Employer if immediate employer failes to discharge it. However that provision is for the benefit of workmen and not for the benefit of either immediate employer or principal employer. If the principal employer gets a contract or to work, it is immediate employer who is to be registered with the Provident Fund Department. It is pertinent that note that while effecting payment of wages to such contract labourer, the provident fund contribution can be directly deducted and deposited in the provident fund account of respective employee.

3/3 [6] The judicial review in such matters is very restricted and unless and until act of M.S.E.D.C.L. is shown to be perverse or arbitrary, court cannot interference. As such, we find that no case is made out warranting interference. Petition rejected. No costs.

(A.M. BADAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)