2000 (7) TMI 920 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the contract envisages actual payment or not? Held that - Appeal partly allowed. The High Court directed the Board to discharge its obligation under the contractual provisions. It was noticed that earlier the Board had made payment to the contractor for enhanced wages from 1st April, 1983 to 31st December, 1984. Under the circumstances, declining to accept the second contention, we refrain from interfering with the directions for payment given in the impugned judgment except in respect of the rate of interest awarded by the High Court. The High Court has directed the Board to pay to the contractor the amounts shown in the Statement EX.P-20 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, we feel that it would be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum instead of 18%. In the statement EX.P-20, the contractor has calculated interest @ 18% per annum. The interest amount would now be calculated at 9% instead of 18% per annum. The impugned judgment of the High Court is modified accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition (O.P. 283 of 1995).
2. Contractor's entitlement to reimbursement for enhanced wages paid to workmen.
3. Interpretation and implementation of the contract clause regarding labour escalation.
4. Interest rate on the amount to be reimbursed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition (O.P. 283 of 1995):
The primary contention was whether the writ petition was an appropriate remedy for resolving the dispute. The court held that "the interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition." It emphasized that disputes arising from contractual terms should be adjudicated by civil courts or through arbitration if stipulated in the contract. The court found merit in the argument that the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction in this matter, as the contract in question was not statutory but in the realm of private law. Consequently, the contractor should have been directed to pursue other remedies.

2. Contractor's Entitlement to Reimbursement for Enhanced Wages Paid to Workmen:
The contractor claimed reimbursement for Rs.9,93,93,868/- paid towards escalated minimum wages from January 1, 1985, to March 31, 1993. The Board did not dispute its liability to reimburse the contractor if the enhanced wages were indeed paid. However, it contended that the contractor failed to prove the actual payment of these wages. The High Court directed the Board to pay the contractor, considering the public interest in the dam's timely construction and the inordinate delay already experienced.

3. Interpretation and Implementation of the Contract Clause Regarding Labour Escalation:
The court noted that the contract included a labour escalation formula agreed upon through negotiations and correspondence before the formal contract was executed on September 16, 1981. The formula was accepted by the Board, subject to certain conditions. The High Court observed that the Board had previously made payments for enhanced wages from April 1, 1983, to December 31, 1984, and directed the Board to continue fulfilling its obligations under the contract. The court found that the contractor was entitled to reimbursement based on the agreed formula, which was confirmed by the industrial tribunal's award.

4. Interest Rate on the Amount to be Reimbursed:
The High Court had directed the Board to pay the contractor with interest at 18% per annum. However, the Supreme Court modified this, considering the totality of circumstances, and deemed it just and proper to award interest at 9% per annum instead. The interest amount would be recalculated accordingly.

Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed, with the Supreme Court modifying the High Court's judgment to reduce the interest rate from 18% to 9% per annum. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →