In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, a significant decision was made in a case involving a dispute over manpower services between the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying and the petitioner. The judgment sheds light on the rights and obligations of both parties, offering clarity on the contentious issue. Let’s delve into the details of this crucial legal battle.
Facts
- Petitioner was awarded a bid for outsourcing MTS by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying.
- Petitioner received a request to furnish a performance security deposit for the contract.
- Emails were exchanged regarding the enrollment of 17 MTSs on Petitioner’s payroll.
- Petitioner offered two options to the Department regarding the deployment of MTSs.
- Petitioner reported for duty with the manpower but was denied entry by the Department.
- The Department issued a Show Cause Notice for non-deposit of Performance Bank Guarantee.
- The Department justified denial of entry based on lack of consultation regarding manpower deployment.
- Petitioner filed a petition seeking directions to provide manpower services as per the contract.
Arguments
- The Respondent’s new contract with M/s Mritunjyaa Associates has been executed, rendering the relief sought in the writ petition infructuous.
- The Petitioner claims entitlement to a refund of Rs. 40,003/- paid to GeM for fees, as the Respondent wrongfully refused their services on June 1, 2022.
- The Respondent alleges that the Petitioner failed to furnish the Performance Bank Guarantee.
- Relief of compensation for wrongful termination granted liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum.
Analysis
- The Petitioner is contractually liable for the quality of services provided by its personnel.
- The Respondent cannot force the Petitioner to employ specific individuals.
- Upon review of relevant emails and the counter affidavit, the Court finds merit in the Petitioner’s argument.
- The Respondent’s insistence on the Petitioner absorbing 17 MTSs from the previous contractor is deemed unreasonable.
- Therefore, the Petitioner’s refusal to engage the 17 MTSs is considered fair and justified.
- The Respondent terminated the contract with the Petitioner for not accepting the 17 MTSs proposed by the Respondent.
- The Respondent availed services from a third-party, M/s Mritunjyaa Associates.
- The termination of the contract by the Respondent appears unwarranted and unjustified.
Decision
- The Petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 40,003/- paid to GeM for participating in the tender process.
- The Petitioner has the liberty to seek compensation for wrongful termination of its contract before the appropriate forum.
- If the Respondent fails to refund the amount within four weeks, they will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May, 2022.
- The rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
Case Title: SCS ENTERPRISE Vs. THE FISHERY ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND DAIRYING DEPARTMENT (2024:DHC:3933-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-15766/2022
