Holding

The contractor is not entitled to 471% ASOR for casual labour wages; wages must be paid as per the Supreme Court’s 14‑01‑2010 order, and the direction to determine the contractor’s profit is quashed.

Summary

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) entered into a handling and transport contract with contractor Pratap Kundu, wherein the rate for supplying casual labour (Item 24) was to be determined by a pending Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court later ordered that casual labourers be paid wages as per Scale‑II rates (order dated 14‑01‑2010). The contractor claimed 471% above‑schedule‑rate (ASOR) on wages paid to the labourers, but the FCI rejected this claim. The High Court referred the matter back to the FCI Chairman to calculate exact wages and also directed him to determine the contractor’s profit, which the contractor appealed. The Supreme Court held that the contractor is not entitled to the 471% ASOR; wages must be paid according to the 14‑01‑2010 order, and the direction to determine profit is untenable. The Court partially allowed the FCI’s appeal, dismissed the contractor’s appeal, and limited the remand to wage determination only.

Issues considered

Whether the contractor is entitled to 471% above‑schedule‑rate (ASOR) for Item 24 (supply of casual labour) under the contract.
Whether wages for casual labourers must be paid as per the Supreme Court’s 14‑01‑2010 order (Scale‑II) rather than on an ASOR basis.
Whether the High Court’s direction to the FCI Chairman to determine the contractor’s profit is legally valid.
Whether the High Court’s remand to the Chairman for wage calculation is appropriate.
Interpretation of Clause 24 of the contract in light of the pending SLP.

Subjects

Contract interpretationWage determinationAbove schedule rate (ASOR)Supreme Court orderProfit determinationLabor lawRemand

Judgment

[2019] 14 S.C.R. 1103 1103

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA A
v.
PRATAP KUNDU
(Civil Appeal No.9127 OF 2019)
NOVEMBER 29, 2019 B
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Contract:
Tender by appellant-Corporation for appointment of
Handling and Transport contractor – As per the tender relevant C
rate of wages was to be as per the decision of pending case before
Supreme Court – Corporation accepted the tender of the contractor
at the negotiated rate of 471% ASOR (above the schedule rates) –
On completion of contract, contractor claimed ASOR of 471% on
the amount paid to the contract casual labourers – Demand rejected
D
by the Corporation – Writ petition by Contractor seeking inter alia,
additional amount for payment of contract casual labourers –
Supreme Court, in the meantime, in the pending case directed the
Corporation to make payment of wages to the workmen in Scale II,
by its judgment dated 14.01.2010 – Single Judge of High Court
allowed the writ petition of the Contractor and directed the E
Corporation to make payment – In appeal, Division Bench of High
Court held that the contractor was not entitled to the wages to be
paid to the casual labourers on 471% ASOR basis and the wages
were to be paid at the rate specified in the order dated 14.1.2010
passed by Supreme Court – However, High Court finding that there
F
was no clarity as to how the Corporation had applied the judgment
dated 14.1.2010 to calculate the wages, referred the matter back to
the Corporation to determine exact amount of wages – High Court
also directed the Corporation to determine the profit earned by the
contractor – Appeal to Supreme Court by the Contractor as well as
the Corporation – Held: Division Bench of the High Court rightly G
held that the contractor was not entitled to the wages to be paid to
the casual labourers on 471% ASOR basis and that the wages to be
paid to the labourers was to be at the rate specified in the order
dated 14.1.2010 – However, the direction of the Division Bench to
H
1103
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A determine the profit earned by the contractor is quashed – Remand
of the matter to the Corporation shall be restricted to the
determination of wages as per the order dated 14.01.2010.
Partly allowing the appeals of the Corporation and
dismissing that of the Contractor, the Court
B HELD: 1. At the time when the contract between the FCI
and the contractor was entered into, there was already a dispute
pending with respect to the rate of wages to be paid to the casual
labourers. Therefore, so far as Item No.24 for supply of casual
labourers is concerned, it was provided that “relevant rate of
C wages is to be paid and such rate shall abide by the decision of
pending SLP as filed by the FCI in the Hon’ble Supreme Court”.
The dispute with respect to wages came to be finally settled/
disposed of by this Court by its order dated 14.01.2010. Therefore,
the casual labourers were entitled to the wages as per the final
order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010, and as per the
D terms and conditions of the contract, more particularly with
respect to Item No. 24, the wages were required to be paid as
per the determination in the pending SLP. [Para 6] [1112-E-G]
2. With respect to supply of casual labourers at 471% ASOR,
the contractor claimed between Rs.607.43 to Rs.1225.19 per day.
E The FCI determined and paid the wages as per the direction
issued by this Court in the order dated 14.01.2010 ranging
between Rs. 308.85 to 391.35 per day. The Chairman of the FCI
rightly rejected the claim of the contractor, as the wages to the
casual labourers were required to be determined and paid as per
F the order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010. Therefore, as
such, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly observed
and held that after this Court’s judgment and order dated
14.01.2010, the rate of wages payable to the labourers under the
subject contract would be according to the rate specified in that
judgment and not on 471% ASOR basis. Therefore, the contractor
G shall not be entitled to the wages to be paid to the casual labourers
on 471% ASOR basis and the wages to be paid to the labourers
would be at the rate specified in the order dated 14.01.2010.
[Para 6.1] [1113-E; 1115-A-C]

H
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. PRATAP KUNDU 1105

3. However, the Division Bench of the High Court was of A
the opinion that there is no clarity how judgment and order dated
14.01.2010 has been applied by the FCI to calculate the wages of
the casual labourers, therefore, the Division Bench of the High
Court has referred the matter back to the Chairman of the FCI
to consider how the differential rate of casual labourers between
B
Rs. 308.85/- per day and Rs.353.19/- per day between January
and March, 2000 and October to December, 2001 respectively
and the differential rate for the subsequent period up to July,
2004 has been determined and the Chairman is directed to
determine the exact amount of wages that was payable, applying
the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010. C
[Para 6.1] [1115-C-E]
4. So far as the direction issued by the Division Bench of
the High Court directing the Chairman to determine the profit
earned by the contractor out of his contract is concerned, the
same is not sustainable at all. On bare reading of the order dated D
14.01.2010 there does not appear to be left open other issues to
be determined, as observed by the High Court in the impugned
judgment and order. Under the circumstances, that part of the
direction issued by the Division Bench directing the Chairman
to determine the profit earned by the contractor deserves to be
quashed and set aside. [Para 6, 6.2] [1115-F-H] E

5. Remand to the Chairman of the FCI shall be restricted
to the determination of the wages as per the judgment and order
dated 14.01.2012 passed by this Court, more particularly as
contained in paragraph a & b of the operative portion of the
impugned order. However, that part of the direction issued by F
the Division Bench in the operative portion of the order by which
the Chairman is directed to determine the profit earned by the
contractor, the same is hereby quashed and set aside.
[Para 7] [1116-D-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.9127 G
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2019 of the High Court
at Calcutta in FMA No.1168 of 2017.

H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A With
Civil Appeal No 9128 of 2019.
N.K. Kaul, Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs. Ajit Pudussery,
Vijayan Ajeet Singh Verma, Pijush K. Roy, Mrs. Kakali Roy, Rajan K.
Chourasia, Advs.for the appearing parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. Both these appeals which, as such, can be said to be cross
C
appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.04.2019
passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 1168 of 2017, filed
by the original appellants – Food Corporation of India and others.
3. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:
D By judgment and order dated 23.06.1998, the Calcutta High Court
in Writ Petition No. 1491 of 1997 filed by the contract casual labourers
supplied by an earlier contractor for the Bikna Depot directed that the
contract casual labourers would be entitled to payment of wages
equivalent to Class IV employees. The appeal filed by the Food
Corporation of India (for short ‘FCI’) came to be dismissed by the Division
E Bench of the High Court on 16.07.1998. The judgment and order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 16.07.1998 was challenged
by the FCI before this Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 6064-6065 of
1998. That on 16.12.1999 after the earlier contract period came to an
end, the appellant – FCI floated tender for appointment of Handling and
F Transport Contractor for the Bikna Depot. The respondent – contractor
submitted his tender in which he quoted 471% above the schedule of
rates fixed in the tender. Appendix VIII of the tender provided the
schedule of rates for the contract and printed rates were provided on all
items. The tenderer was required to quote rates above the schedule
rates provided in the contract. Item No. 24 was for supply of casual
G labour. That the aforesaid Civil Appeals arising out of special leave
petitions were pending before this Court so far as Item No. 24 which
was for supply of casual labour and therefore it was stated in the tender
that “relevant rate of wages is to be paid and such rate shall abide by the

H
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. PRATAP KUNDU 1107
[M.R. SHAH, J.]

decision of pending SLP as filed by FCI in the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. A
That by judgment and order dated 28.09.2000, this Court dismissed the
aforesaid Civil Appeal Nos. 6064-6065 of 1998 upholding the judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 16.07.1998. That vide
communication dated 17.01.2000, tender of the respondent was accepted
and he was appointed as Handling and Transport Contractor for a period
B
of two years at the negotiated rate of 471% ASOR (above the schedule
rates). That the original contract was meant for a period of two years,
i.e., up to 16.01.2002. That after the original contract was over, the
respondent-contractor submitted a bill dated 19.07.2002 claiming ASOR
of 471% on the amount paid to the contract casual labourers. In the
meantime, one contempt petition was filed before the High Court alleging C
non-compliance of the earlier judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge, confirmed up to this Court. The High Court vide judgment
and order dated 04.04.2003 convicted the officers of the FCI for contempt
of court and sentenced them to undergo three months imprisonment and
fine for violation of the orders for non-payment to the contract casual
D
labour. The order passed by the High Court in the contempt petition
was the subject matter before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473
of 2003. This Court stayed the further proceedings before the High
Court. That the demand of the contractor claiming ASOR of 471% on
the amount paid to the contract casual labourers was rejected by the
FCI. The contractor filed Writ Petition No. 7790 of 2004 seeking, inter E
alia, additional amount for payment of the contract casual labourers. By
judgment and order dated 14.01.2010, this Court disposed of Civil Appeal
Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003 and directed the FCI to make payment of wages
to the workmen in Scale-II, as revised from time to time, and also directed
that the arrears and wages should be directly paid to the workmen and
F
legal representatives of the workers without involving any contractor or
other agency. It was also directed that once the payments were made,
the sentence awarded would stand set aside. That thereafter contempt
petition Nos. 56-57 of 2011 were filed by the contract casual labourers
alleging non-compliance of order dated 14.01.2010 passed in Civil Appeal
Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003 passed by this Court. The same came to be G
dismissed by this Court by order dated 04.07.2011. That in Writ Petition
No. 7790 of 2004 filed by the contractor, the High Court vide order
dated 08.12.2011 directed the CMD of FCI to pass a reasoned and
speaking order on the grievance raised by the contractor. The CMD of
H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A FCI passed a detailed speaking order dated 15.03.2012 holding, inter
alia, that the contractor was not entitled to claim raised by him regarding
471% of ASOR on the wages actually paid to the casual labour because
the claim was contrary to the contract between the parties. The contractor
amended the aforesaid petition. In the aforesaid amended writ petition
No. 7790 of 2004, the contractor prayed for the following reliefs:
B
“b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents
and their men and agents to make payment A.S.O.R as per the
bill submitted by the petitioner in terms of Clause 24 of the tender
at the rate of 471% A.S.O.R. above the Schedule Rate
immediately being Annexure “P-4” and “P-11” to this writ petition
C and further commanding the respondents to delete the liability as
fixed up upon the petitioner towards payment of E.P.F.,
Administrative Charges and Income Tax liability by the District
Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bankura vide his letter dated
24.04.2004 and the statement annexed thereto being Annexure
D “P-10” to the writ petition.”
3.1. That the learned Single Judge of the High Court, by judgment
and order dated 12.04.2016, allowed the aforesaid Writ Petition No.
7790 of 2004 and quashed and set aside the speaking order dated
15.03.2012 passed by the CMD, FCI and directed the CMD to verify
E the bill and make payment of the unpaid dues with liberty to deduct the
payment already made.
3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the FCI preferred appeal
before the Division Bench of the High Court being MAT No. 1151 of
F 2016/F.M.A. 1168 of 2017. That by the impugned judgment and order,
the High Court has disposed of the appeal with the following directions:
“(a) the appellant will furnish details to the Chairman of how the
Supreme Court judgment and order dated 14th January, 2010 was
applied to fix the differential daily rate of casual labourers between
G Rs.308.85/- per day and Rs.353.19/- per day between January
and March, 2000 and October to December, 2001 respectively
and the differential rate for the subsequent period up to July, 2004.
(b) the Chairman shall also determine the exact amount of wages
that was payable, applying the above Supreme Court judgment
H
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. PRATAP KUNDU 1109
[M.R. SHAH, J.]

the amount that was actually paid by the appellant directly to the A
labourers and the wages outstanding, if any. According to the
said Supreme Court judgment, such outstanding wages is to be
paid directly to the workers/their heirs.
In fact, the said judgment of the Supreme Court dated 14th January,
2010 has left open other issues to be determined. B
One such issue is the amount representing the profit receivable
by the respondent.
The Chairman will determine the profit to be earned by the
respondent out of this contract, in accordance with law.
C
He shall make the determination with intelligible reasons within
four months of communication of this order, upon hearing the
parties.
If any amount is determined by the Chairman to be payable to the
respondent the same shall be released by the appellant to him D
within 8 weeks of making the determination.”
3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, both the FCI as well as the contractor
have preferred the present appeals.
4. Shri N.K. Kaul, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf E
of the FCI and Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate has
appeared on behalf of the Contractor in respective appeals.
4.1 Shri N.K. Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the FCI has vehemently submitted that as such the High Court in the
impugned judgment and order has clearly given a finding that after the F
judgment of this Court dated 14.01.2010, the rate of wages payable to
the labourers under the said contract would be according to the rate
specified in that judgment and not on 471% ASOR basis, still the High
Court has dismissed the appeal and has directed the CMD to calculate
the amount of wages.
G
4.2 It is further submitted by Shri N.K. Kaul, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the FCI that it is required to be noted
that the contract specifically provided that the rate quoted by the contractor
and agreed to between the parties of 471% was above the schedule of

H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A rates provided in Appendix VIII of the contract. It is submitted that
Appendix VIII clearly shows that such a schedule of rate was only
provided regarding Item Nos. 1 to 23 and 25 of the Appendix. It is
submitted against Item No. 24, which was with respect to supply of
casual labourers, it was specifically provided that “Relevant rate of wages
is to be paid and such rate shall abide by the decision of pending SLP as
B
filed by the FCI in the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. It is submitted that
there was no schedule of rate for Item No. 24 which was for supply of
casual labour and therefore the claim of 471% above schedule of rates
(ASOR) has no application to the quotation pertaining to supply of casual
labour.
C 4.3 It is further submitted by Shri N.K. Kaul, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the FCI that the High Court has failed
to consider the fact that after the order passed by the Supreme Court
dated 14.01.2010, a contempt petition was filed which came to be
dismissed by this Court on 4.7.2011 as the order passed by this Court
D was complied with. It is submitted that therefore the High Court has
materially erred in passing the impugned judgment and order, more
particularly directing the CMD to re-calculate the wages.
4.4 It is further submitted by Shri N.K. Kaul, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the FCI that the High Court has materially
E erred in directing the Chairman to determine the profit to be earned by
the contractor out of his contract. It is submitted that while passing such
a direction, the High Court has not properly appreciated and considered
the order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010. It is submitted that in
the order dated 14.01.2010 passed by this Court, this Court never kept
an issue left open, more particularly with respect to profit received by
F the contractor. It is submitted that therefore the High Court has clearly
erred in directing the CMD to determine the profit to be earned by the
contractor.
4.5 It is further submitted by Shri N.K. Kaul, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the FCI that, in fact, the contractor
G paid the wages @ Rs.106.38/- per day and if his enhanced claim of
471% ASOR on the wages paid to the casual labour is accepted, in that
case, there would be unjust enrichment to the contractor. It is submitted
that the additional claim of the contractor for Item No. 24 is

H
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. PRATAP KUNDU 1111
[M.R. SHAH, J.]

Rs. 5,34,41,520/-. It is almost three times the amount due to him under A
the contract. It is submitted that in any case this Court having decided
the rate of wages to be paid to the casual labour and in view of the
direction to pay the same directly to the labour without any intermediary,
there was no question of payment of any further amount as per the
additional claim made by the contractor of 471% ASOR on the wages
B
paid to the casual labour.
5. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the contractor has vehemently submitted that as such the
Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in referring the
matter back to the Chairman of the FCI to decide certain issues and
even consider to determine the profit receivable by the contractor. It is C
submitted that referring the matter back to the Chairman of the FCI
would be nothing but a futile exercise of power by the Chairman, who
has already rejected the claim of the contractor by its order dated
15.03.2012.
5.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior D
Advocate appearing on behalf of the contractor that even otherwise the
Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering with
the decision of the learned Single Judge in which the learned Single
Judge rightly held that Clause 24 of the agreement of wages of the
casual labourers is covered by 471% of ASOR, which the FCI was E
obliged to pay to the contractor as per the terms of the agreement.
5.2 It is further submitted by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the contractor that, as such, both the
parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement and
therefore when the contractor submitted the tender with 471% ASOR F
and the same was accepted, the contractor shall be entitled to 471%
ASOR on every item including the supply of the casual labourers.
5.3 It is further submitted by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the contractor that, as such, the
contractor had to pay provident fund etc. over and above the wages to G
be paid and therefore the same was required to be compensated by the
FCI. It is submitted therefore that the FCI authorities are obliged to pay
ASOR at the tune of 471% for supply of casual labourers, as categorically
laid down in the agreement.

H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A 5.4 It is further submitted by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the contractor that even according to
FCI the contractor shall be entitled to 471% ASOR with respect to Item
Nos. 1 to 23 and 25. It is submitted that therefore there is no question of
not paying 471% ASOR with respect to supply of casual labourers. It is
submitted therefore that the demand of the contractor making the claim
B
of 471% ASOR with respect of supply of casual labourers is absolutely
just and proper and as per the agreement between the parties, which the
learned Single Judge rightly appreciated. It is submitted therefore that
the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering
with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge which
C was absolutely in consonance with the terms and conditions of the
agreement.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the controversy centres
D around the interpretation of Clause 24 of the agreement and the dispute
is whether the contractor is entitled to 471% ASOR in respect of all
items including item No. 24 for supply of casual labourers? It is required
to be noted that the original contract period was from 18.01.2000 to
17.01.2002 and it was extended till 13.07.2004. It is also required to be
E noted that at the time when the contract between the FCI and the
contractor was entered into, there was already a dispute pending with
respect to the rate of wages to be paid to the casual labourers. Therefore,
so far as Item No.24 for supply of casual labourers is concerned, it was
provided that “relevant rate of wages is to be paid and such rate shall
abide by the decision of pending SLP as filed by the FCI in the Hon’ble
F Supreme Court”. It is also required to be noted that in Appendix VIII
with respect to other items, namely item nos. 1 to 23 and 25, specific
rates were mentioned, however, with respect to Item No. 24 – supply of
casual labourers, it was blank and with respect to Item No. 24, it was
specifically provided that the wages to be paid to the casual labourers
G shall abide by the decision of the pending SLP. The contractor paid the
wages to the casual labourers at the rate of Rs.106.38 per day. The first
SLP came to be dismissed by this Court on March 29, 2004. However,
still the dispute continued. Contempt proceedings were initiated which
ultimately reached this Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of
2003. Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003 came to be finally disposed
H
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. PRATAP KUNDU 1113
[M.R. SHAH, J.]

of by this Court on 14.01.2010 and it was directed that the FCI shall fix A
the pay of the casual labourers as also of the deceased workers, who
were petitioners in the first or second case filed in the High Court, in
Scale-II, as revised from time to time (as on 1.1.1997, the scale was
Rs.4320-7330). This Court also directed that all the payments shall be
made to the workers and legal representatives of the deceased workers
B
directly without involving any contractor and other agency. Therefore,
the dispute with respect to wages came to be finally settled/disposed of
by this Court by its order dated 14.01.2010 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.
9472-9473 of 2003. Therefore, the casual labourers were entitled to the
wages as per the final order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010 in
Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003, and as per the terms and conditions C
of the contract, more particularly with respect to Item No. 24 the wages
were required to be paid as per the determination in the pending SLP,
i.e., Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003.
6.1 At this stage, it is also required to be noted that even
subsequently the workers filed contempt petition before this Court which D
came to be dismissed as this Court was of the opinion that order dated
14.01.2010 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003 has been
complied with. That thereafter the contractor made the claim claiming
471% ASOR with respect to supply of casual labourers at 471% ASOR
as per the claim the contractor claimed between Rs.607.43 to Rs.1225.19
per day. The FCI determined and paid the wages as per the direction E
issued by this Court in the order dated 14.01.2010 ranging between Rs.
308.85 to 391.35 per day. The statement with respect to claim made by
the contractor and the amount paid to the casual labourers as determined
and paid by the FCI is as under:
F
Period Bill raised by Pratap Now being Amount paid to Casual
Kundu, HTC & paid Claimed by Labourers for the contract
by FCI (per Contractor Pratap period of Pratap Kundu
day/Casual Labourer Kundu @ 471% on (18.01.2000 to
wages raised 13.07.2004) after order
dated 14.01.2010 of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in
SLP No. 9472-9473 of
G
2003 filed by FCI v. Bijoy
Kumar Singh & Ors.
Jan-Mar, 00 Rs.106.38 Rs. 607.43 Rs.308.85
Apr-May,00 Rs.106.38 Rs. 607.43 Rs.306.31

H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A

June, 2000 Rs.106.38 Rs.607.43 Rs.317.42

July-Sept, 00 Rs.106.38 Rs.607.43 Rs.321.46
B
Oct-Dec.,00 Rs.106.38 Rs.607.43 Rs.325.31

Jan-Mar, 01 Rs.106.38 Rs.607.43 Rs.333.88

Apr-Jun, 01 Rs.106.38 Rs.607.43 Rs.331.92
C
Jun-Sept, 01 Rs.106.38 Rs.607.43 Rs.334.08

Oct-Dec, 01 Rs.106.38 Rs.607.43 Rs.343.00

Jan-Mar, 02 Rs.106.38 Rs.607.43 Rs.353.19
D
Apr-Jun, 02 Rs.106.38 Rs.607.43 Rs.352.54

July-Sept.,02 Rs.106.38 Rs. 607.43 Rs.353.85

E Oct-Dec.,02 Rs.106.38 Rs.607.43 Rs.360.73

Jan-Mar, 03 Rs.106.38 Rs.607.43 Rs.372.23

Apr-Jun, 03 Rs.206.73 Rs.1180.42 Rs.369.96
F Jul-Sept, 03 Rs.209.96 Rs.1198.87 Rs.374.96

Oct-Dec, 03 Rs.213.23 Rs.1217.54 Rs.379.96

Jan-Mar, 04 Rs.214.58 Rs.1225.25 Rs.389.23
G
Apr-Jun, 04 Rs.214.57 Rs.1225.19 Rs.390.19

July, 04 Rs.214.57 Rs.1225.19 Rs.391.35

H
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. PRATAP KUNDU 1115
[M.R. SHAH, J.]

The aforesaid claim has been rejected by the Chairman of the A
FCI and according to us the same was rightly rejected by the Chairman
as the wages to the casual labourers were required to be determined
and paid as per the order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010 in Civil
Appeal Nos. 9472-9473/2003. Therefore, as such, the Division Bench
of the High Court has rightly observed and held that after this Court’s
B
judgment and order dated 14.01.2010, the rate of wages payable to the
labourers under the subject contract would be according to the rate
specified in that judgment and not on 471% ASOR basis. We are in
complete agreement with the said finding recorded by the Division Bench.
Therefore, it is observed and held that the contractor shall not be entitled
to the wages to be paid to the casual labourers on 471% ASOR basis C
and the wages to be paid to the labourers would be at the rate specified
in the order dated 14.01.2010 in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473/2003.
However, the Division Bench of the High Court was of the opinion that
there is no clarity how judgment and order dated 14.01.2010 has been
applied by the FCI to calculate the wages of the casual labourers,
D
therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has referred the matter
back to the Chairman of the FCI to consider how the differential rate of
casual labourers between Rs. 308.85/- per day and Rs.353.19/- per day
between January and March, 2000 and October to December, 2001
respectively and the differential rate for the subsequent period up to
July, 2004 has been determined and the Chairman is directed to determine E
the exact amount of wages that was payable, applying the judgment and
order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010 in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-
9473/2003.
6.2 So far as the direction issued by the Division Bench of the
High Court directing the Chairman to determine the profit earned by the F
contractor out of his contract is concerned, the same is not sustainable
at all. The Division Bench of the High Court has observed that the
judgment and order of this Court dated 14.01.2010 has left open other
issues to be determined. We do not find anything in the order dated
14.01.2010. On bare reading of the order dated 14.01.2010 there does
not appear to be left open other issues to be determined, as observed by G
the High Court in the impugned judgment and order. Under the
circumstances, that part of the direction issued by the Division Bench
directing the Chairman to determine the profit earned by the contractor
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
appeal filed by the FCI being Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No.
21970 of 2019 is hereby partly allowed. It is observed and held that the
casual labourers shall be entitled to the wages according to the rates
specified in the order dated 14.01.2010 passed by this Court in Civil
Appeal Nos. 9472-9473/2003 and the contractor shall not be entitled to
B
471% ASOR basis with respect to supply of casual labourers as claimed
by him. Therefore, it is specifically observed and held that the FCI shall
be liable to pay the wages payable to the casual labourers under the
subject contract according to the rates specified in the judgment and
order dated 14.01.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-
C 9473/2003 and not on 471% ASOR basis. It goes without saying that
the contractor shall be entitled to reimburse the wages paid by him, i.e.,
Rs.106.38 per labourer, if the same is not reimbursed/paid to the contractor.
Therefore, remand to the Chairman of the FCI shall be restricted to the
determination of the wages as per the judgment and order dated
14.01.20120 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473/2003,
D
more particularly as contained in paragraph a & b of the operative portion
of the impugned order. However, that part of the direction issued by the
Division Bench in the operative portion of the order by which the
Chairman is directed to determine the profit earned by the contractor,
the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal preferred by the
E FCI is partly allowed in terms of the above. Consequently, the appeal
preferred by the contractor being Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No.
35242/2019 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of.
F

G

H