OPEN NATIONAL SOCIAL SERVICE TRIPURA Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent No.1 Reserve Bank of India to award a contract for supplying manpower to the respondent No.3 pursuant to a tender process initiated by the said bank. The petitioner had also participated in the tender process and the bids of the petitioner as well as that of the respondent No.2 were accepted on technical specifications. When the financial bids were opened, it was found that the offer of the respondent No. 3 at Rs.11,08,472/- was marginally lower than that of the petitioner which was Rs.11,18,068/-. Respondent No.3 was therefore awarded the contract to supply the manpower for a period of two years.

(2.) The main ground raised by the petitioner is that respondent No.3 had offered a negative rate of service charge which was contrary to the tender conditions. Our attention was drawn to the tender terms in which it is provided that the tenderer would quote the service charges per day which should not be zero or negative value. The petitioner had quoted service charge at the rate of Rs.4.27 per day per person to be supplied whereas the respondent No.3 had quoted service charge at the rate of Rs.0.01 per day per person. Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that this amounts to negative rate of service charge since the contractor would have to make contribution to the provident fund account of the concerned labourers engaged and on which there is a prescribed statutory service charge of 0.5 per cent.

(3.) In our opinion, there is no link between the contractor's obligation under the Employees Provident Fund Act and the scheme made thereunder and the quotation of service charge in terms of the tender condition. The tender condition only required the tenderer to quote service charge which should not be either zero or negative. As long as this is done, the same cannot be seen as a breach of this condition. The respondents No.1 & 2 were therefore correct in not disqualifying the respondent No.3 on this ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct in contending that it is difficult to understand how the contractor can afford to do the work at such low rates. However, that is a lookout of the contractor and to a degree that of the RBI to ensure that the contractor employs number of persons he has agreed to and for which they would be paid on daily basis and also that he does not breach the provisions of minimum wages, provident fund statutes and other labour welfare measures applicable in his case.