High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mahendra Kumar Singh And Others v. U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. And Others - WRIT - C No. 4211 of 2006  RD-AH 1703 (23 January 2006)
Civil Misc. W.P. No. 4211 of 2006
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rakes Kumar for the respondent No. 4 and Sri Anil Mehrotra for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. A counter affidavit may be filed within a month. Rejoinder may be filed within three weeks thereafter, List thereafter.
The Employees Provident Fund Act (EPF in short) does not apply to establishments employing less than 20 workmen. Therefore, such an establishment would not be required to get either an E.P.F. Code or to get any exemption. Therefore, incorporating a condition in the tender form by the Power Corporation would not alter the law and the condition would be liable to be struck down.
According to the case of the petitioners, they are small contractor who have been debarred by the impugned condition in every tender requiring either an E.P.F. Code number or an exemption from the E.P.F. Department in respect of every contractor whether the contract requires more or less than 20 workmen.
It is common knowledge that there are several shops of electrical goods and several electricians, who do petty work with the help of much less than 20 workmen.
Therefore, if the respondents No. 1 to 3 float a tender in respect of any such petty work which requires less than 20 workmen, none of the petitioners will be denied the tender on the ground that they don't have an EPF code or EPF exemption. However, the condition will continue to hold good regarding the requirement of code number or exemption in respect of tenders of such contracts which require engagement of more than 20 workmen.
Dated : January 23, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.