← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/19039/2016disposed of

Secure Guard Security And Manpower Services v. Ut Of Chandigarh And ORS.

2016-10-03Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath3 pages

[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision:03.10.2016 Secure Guard Security & Manpower Services

...Petitioner

Versus

State of U.T. And others

...Respondents

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 23.10.2015 by which their request made on 21.05.2015 for payment of administrative charges @ 2% on the DC rates instead of ALC rates w.e.f. 12.11.2014 has been declined, without giving any reason.

The petitioner, who is a service provider, entered into a service agreement with the respondents on 07.07.2014 for providing security and para-medical staff at the Government Multi Specialty Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh and Civil Hospital, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh for a period of three years. However, the agreement has to be renewed after every one year, which was lastly renewed on 15.07.2016 for the period up to 15.07.2017. The petitioner was paying the charges to its employees on the basis of Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC) rates, whereas the

[ 2 ] respondents have asked the petitioner to pay it on the basis of Deputy Commissioner (DC) rates w.e.f. 12.11.2014. The petitioner is, thus, paying the charges to its employees on the basis of DC rates which includes the Employees Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance fund etc.. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the DC rates are much higher than the ALC rates. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is being paid the administrative charges @ 2% on the basis of ALC rates instead of DC rates though it is paying charges to its employees on the basis of DC rates.

Counsel for the petitioner has been very fair in submitting that Clause 32 of the service agreement deals with the Alternate Disputes Resolution Mechanism, as per which in case of non-settlement of any dispute amicably, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator i.e. the Secretary Health, Chandigarh Administration. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since the issue in respect of payment of 2% administrative charges is not a part of the service agreement, therefore, it would not be in a position to take this matter to the arbitrator. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that the payment of 2% administrative charges to be made by the respondents to the petitioner, whether on the basis of ALC rates or DC rates, flows from the service agreement itself, therefore, the petitioner shall have to take this matter to the sole arbitrator for the purpose of its adjudication on the basis of evidence to be led before him.

[ 3 ] In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner raises an arbitral dispute in terms of Clause 32 of the service agreement, the same shall be considered and decided by the sole arbitrator as early as possible, in accordance with law. October 03, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No