Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)7094/2014
M/S.WELLPROTECT MANPOWER SERVICESPRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja,Advocates.
W.P.(C)7094/2014
M/S.WELLPROTECT MANPOWER SERVICESPRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja,Advocates.
VERSUS
GOVT.OF NOT OF DELHI& OTHERS .... Respondents
Through:Mr.Satyakam,ASC for Govt.ofNCT of Delhi.
Through:Mr.Satyakam,ASC for Govt.ofNCT of Delhi.
W.P.(C)7134/2014
M/S.WELLPROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja,Advocates.
M/S.WELLPROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja,Advocates.
VERSUS
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI& OTHERS Respondents
Through:Mr.Satyakam,ASCfor Govt.ofNCT ofDelhi.
Through:Mr.Satyakam,ASCfor Govt.ofNCT ofDelhi.
W.P.(C)8109/2014
M/S.WELLPROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE
Through: Mr. D K Sharma, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mittal,Mr.Kartikay Sharma,Mr.Abhinav Sharma and Mr.Neeraj Sharma,Advocates.
M/S.WELLPROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE
Through: Mr. D K Sharma, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mittal,Mr.Kartikay Sharma,Mr.Abhinav Sharma and Mr.Neeraj Sharma,Advocates.
VERSUS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANOTHER Respondents
Through:Mr.Parvinder Chauhan with Mr.Vishal Chauhan and Mr.Nitin Jain,Advocatesfor
NDMC.
Mr.Rajesh Gogna and Ms.Vipra Bhardwaj, 2017:DHC:8674-DB
<)
Advocates for MIT2C.
Through:Mr.Parvinder Chauhan with Mr.Vishal Chauhan and Mr.Nitin Jain,Advocatesfor
NDMC.
Mr.Rajesh Gogna and Ms.Vipra Bhardwaj, 2017:DHC:8674-DB
<)
Advocates for MIT2C.
W.P.(C)8543/2014
GAURAV ENTERPRISES Petitioner
Through: Through: Mr.D K Sharma, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mittal, Mr.Kartikay Sharma,Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr.Neeraj Sharma,Advocates.
GAURAV ENTERPRISES Petitioner
Through: Through: Mr.D K Sharma, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mittal, Mr.Kartikay Sharma,Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr.Neeraj Sharma,Advocates.
VERSUS
EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANOTHER Respondents
Through:Mr.Pravesh Thakur,Advocate for Respondentno.1.
Mr. Rajesh Gogna and Ms. Vipra Bhardwaj, Advocates for MIT2C.
Through:Mr.Pravesh Thakur,Advocate for Respondentno.1.
Mr. Rajesh Gogna and Ms. Vipra Bhardwaj, Advocates for MIT2C.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
13.10.2017 A Division Bench Vide order dated January, 2016, doubting the correctness of decision in MIT2C Security and Facilities Private Limited
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
13.10.2017 A Division Bench Vide order dated January, 2016, doubting the correctness of decision in MIT2C Security and Facilities Private Limited
VERSUS
Government ofNCT & Others, 2013 (205) DLT 288, had made reference ofthe following question oflaw to the Full Bench:-
"Whether an employer quoting a rate inclusive of provident fund contribution that complies with the statutory requirement but is not based on the minimum wage can be said to have submitted a bid that is non- responsive?"
"Whether an employer quoting a rate inclusive of provident fund contribution that complies with the statutory requirement but is not based on the minimum wage can be said to have submitted a bid that is non- responsive?"
ORDER
2. The aforesaid question oflaw had arisen in the context of minimum wage in Delhi being Rs.8086/-,whereas the statutory requirement under the Employees Provident Fund Act towards employer's contribution was restricted to 13.61% on wage ofRs.6,500/- per month.
3. Counsel for the parties submit that the question raised has become of academic interest for two reasons. Firstly, the contract term has expired. Secondly,vide notification dated 22"''August,2014,figure ofRs.6,500/- in the Employees Provident Fund Act was increased to Rs.15,000/- with effect from September,2014.
4. Counsel for the writ petitioners submitthat there has been subsequent increase in minimum wage in Delhi too.
5. It is deemed appropriate to dispose ofthe reference:-
A. By leaving it open to the Government ofNCT ofDelhi as well as the municipal corporations to take note of the controversy and if deemed appropriate,amend and modifythe terms and conditionsoftender.
B. Granting liberty to the parties to, if question oflaw arises in future, seek revival ofthe present reference by moving an appropriate application. - -U ^—. SANJIVKHANNA,J. OCTOBER 13,2017/NA X RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW,J. ASHUTOSH KUMAR,J.