FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA versus PRATAP KUNDU on 29 November 2019

[2019] 14 S.C.R. 1103

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

v.

PRATAP KUNDU(Civil Appeal No.9127 OF 2019) NOVEMBER 29, 2019

[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]

Contract:

Tender by appellant-Corporation for appointment ofHandling and Transport contractor – As per the tender relevantrate of wages was to be as per the decision of pending case beforeSupreme Court – Corporation accepted the tender of the contractorat the negotiated rate of 471% ASOR (above the schedule rates) –On completion of contract, contractor claimed ASOR of 471% onthe amount paid to the contract casual labourers – Demand rejectedby 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 theCorporation to make payment of wages to the workmen in Scale II,by its judgment dated 14.01.2010 – Single Judge of High Courtallowed the writ petition of the Contractor and directed theCorporation to make payment – In appeal, Division Bench of HighCourt held that the contractor was not entitled to the wages to bepaid to the casual labourers on 471% ASOR basis and the wageswere to be paid at the rate specified in the order dated 14.1.2010passed by Supreme Court – However, High Court finding that therewas no clarity as to how the Corporation had applied the judgmentdated 14.1.2010 to calculate the wages, referred the matter back tothe Corporation to determine exact amount of wages – High Courtalso directed the Corporation to determine the profit earned by thecontractor – Appeal to Supreme Court by the Contractor as well asthe Corporation – Held: Division Bench of the High Court rightlyheld that the contractor was not entitled to the wages to be paid tothe casual labourers on 471% ASOR basis and that the wages to bepaid to the labourers was to be at the rate specified in the orderdated 14.1.2010 – However, the direction of the Division Bench to

1103

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adetermine the profit earned by the contractor is quashed – Remandof the matter to the Corporation shall be restricted to thedetermination of wages as per the order dated 14.01.2010.

Partly allowing the appeals of the Corporation anddismissing that of the Contractor, the CourtB

HELD: 1. At the time when the contract between the FCIand the contractor was entered into, there was already a disputepending with respect to the rate of wages to be paid to the casuallabourers. Therefore, so far as Item No.24 for supply of casuallabourers is concerned, it was provided that “relevant rate ofCwages is to be paid and such rate shall abide by the decision ofpending 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 finalorder passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010, and as per theDterms and conditions of the contract, more particularly withrespect to Item No. 24, the wages were required to be paid asper 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.EThe FCI determined and paid the wages as per the directionissued by this Court in the order dated 14.01.2010 rangingbetween Rs. 308.85 to 391.35 per day. The Chairman of the FCIrightly rejected the claim of the contractor, as the wages to thecasual labourers were required to be determined and paid as perFthe order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010. Therefore, assuch, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly observedand held that after this Court’s judgment and order dated14.01.2010, the rate of wages payable to the labourers under thesubject contract would be according to the rate specified in thatjudgment and not on 471% ASOR basis. Therefore, the contractorGshall not be entitled to the wages to be paid to the casual labourerson 471% ASOR basis and the wages to be paid to the labourerswould be at the rate specified in the order dated 14.01.2010.[Para 6.1] [1113-E; 1115-A-C]

H

3. However, the Division Bench of the High Court was ofthe opinion that there is no clarity how judgment and order dated14.01.2010 has been applied by the FCI to calculate the wages ofthe casual labourers, therefore, the Division Bench of the HighCourt has referred the matter back to the Chairman of the FCIto consider how the differential rate of casual labourers betweenRs. 308.85/- per day and Rs.353.19/- per day between Januaryand March, 2000 and October to December, 2001 respectivelyand the differential rate for the subsequent period up to July,2004 has been determined and the Chairman is directed todetermine the exact amount of wages that was payable, applyingthe judgment and order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010.[Para 6.1] [1115-C-E]

4. So far as the direction issued by the Division Bench ofthe High Court directing the Chairman to determine the profitearned by the contractor out of his contract is concerned, thesame is not sustainable at all. On bare reading of the order dated14.01.2010 there does not appear to be left open other issues tobe determined, as observed by the High Court in the impugnedjudgment and order. Under the circumstances, that part of thedirection issued by the Division Bench directing the Chairmanto determine the profit earned by the contractor deserves to bequashed and set aside. [Para 6, 6.2] [1115-F-H]

5. Remand to the Chairman of the FCI shall be restrictedto the determination of the wages as per the judgment and orderdated 14.01.2012 passed by this Court, more particularly ascontained in paragraph a & b of the operative portion of theimpugned order. However, that part of the direction issued bythe Division Bench in the operative portion of the order by whichthe Chairman is directed to determine the profit earned by thecontractor, the same is hereby quashed and set aside.[Para 7] [1116-D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.9127of 2019

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2019 of the High Courtat Calcutta in FMA No.1168 of 2017.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AWith

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 crossCappeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.04.2019passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 1168 of 2017, filedby the original appellants – Food Corporation of India and others.

3. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:

DBy judgment and order dated 23.06.1998, the Calcutta High Courtin Writ Petition No. 1491 of 1997 filed by the contract casual labourerssupplied by an earlier contractor for the Bikna Depot directed that thecontract casual labourers would be entitled to payment of wagesequivalent to Class IV employees. The appeal filed by the FoodCorporation of India (for short ‘FCI’) came to be dismissed by the DivisionEBench of the High Court on 16.07.1998. The judgment and order passedby the Division Bench of the High Court dated 16.07.1998 was challengedby the FCI before this Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 6064-6065 of1998. That on 16.12.1999 after the earlier contract period came to anend, the appellant – FCI floated tender for appointment of Handling andFTransport Contractor for the Bikna Depot. The respondent – contractorsubmitted his tender in which he quoted 471% above the schedule ofrates fixed in the tender. Appendix VIII of the tender provided theschedule of rates for the contract and printed rates were provided on allitems. The tenderer was required to quote rates above the schedulerates provided in the contract. Item No. 24 was for supply of casualGlabour. That the aforesaid Civil Appeals arising out of special leavepetitions were pending before this Court so far as Item No. 24 whichwas for supply of casual labour and therefore it was stated in the tenderthat “relevant rate of wages is to be paid and such rate shall abide by the D

Conclusion

D

decision of pending SLP as filed by FCI in the Hon’ble Supreme Court”.That by judgment and order dated 28.09.2000, this Court dismissed theaforesaid Civil Appeal Nos. 6064-6065 of 1998 upholding the judgmentof the Division Bench of the High Court dated 16.07.1998. That videcommunication dated 17.01.2000, tender of the respondent was acceptedand he was appointed as Handling and Transport Contractor for a periodof two years at the negotiated rate of 471% ASOR (above the schedulerates). 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, therespondent-contractor submitted a bill dated 19.07.2002 claiming ASORof 471% on the amount paid to the contract casual labourers. In themeantime, one contempt petition was filed before the High Court allegingnon-compliance of the earlier judgment and order passed by the learnedSingle Judge, confirmed up to this Court. The High Court vide judgmentand order dated 04.04.2003 convicted the officers of the FCI for contemptof court and sentenced them to undergo three months imprisonment andfine for violation of the orders for non-payment to the contract casuallabour. The order passed by the High Court in the contempt petitionwas the subject matter before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473of 2003. This Court stayed the further proceedings before the HighCourt. That the demand of the contractor claiming ASOR of 471% onthe amount paid to the contract casual labourers was rejected by theFCI. The contractor filed Writ Petition No. 7790 of 2004 seeking, interalia, additional amount for payment of the contract casual labourers. Byjudgment and order dated 14.01.2010, this Court disposed of Civil AppealNos. 9472-9473 of 2003 and directed the FCI to make payment of wagesto the workmen in Scale-II, as revised from time to time, and also directedthat the arrears and wages should be directly paid to the workmen andlegal representatives of the workers without involving any contractor orother agency. It was also directed that once the payments were made,the sentence awarded would stand set aside. That thereafter contemptpetition Nos. 56-57 of 2011 were filed by the contract casual labourersalleging non-compliance of order dated 14.01.2010 passed in Civil AppealNos. 9472-9473 of 2003 passed by this Court. The same came to bedismissed by this Court by order dated 04.07.2011. That in Writ PetitionNo. 7790 of 2004 filed by the contractor, the High Court vide orderdated 08.12.2011 directed the CMD of FCI to pass a reasoned andspeaking order on the grievance raised by the contractor. The CMD of A

B

C

D

EF

G

AFCI passed a detailed speaking order dated 15.03.2012 holding, interalia, that the contractor was not entitled to claim raised by him regarding471% of ASOR on the wages actually paid to the casual labour becausethe claim was contrary to the contract between the parties. The contractoramended the aforesaid petition. In the aforesaid amended writ petitionNo. 7790 of 2004, the contractor prayed for the following reliefs:B

“b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondentsand their men and agents to make payment A.S.O.R as per thebill submitted by the petitioner in terms of Clause 24 of the tenderat the rate of 471% A.S.O.R. above the Schedule Rateimmediately being Annexure “P-4” and “P-11” to this writ petitionCand further commanding the respondents to delete the liability asfixed up upon the petitioner towards payment of E.P.F.,Administrative Charges and Income Tax liability by the DistrictManager, Food Corporation of India, Bankura vide his letter dated24.04.2004 and the statement annexed thereto being AnnexureD“P-10” to the writ petition.”

3.1. That the learned Single Judge of the High Court, by judgmentand order dated 12.04.2016, allowed the aforesaid Writ Petition No.7790 of 2004 and quashed and set aside the speaking order dated15.03.2012 passed by the CMD, FCI and directed the CMD to verifyEthe bill and make payment of the unpaid dues with liberty to deduct thepayment already made.

3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the learned Single Judge, the FCI preferred appealbefore the Division Bench of the High Court being MAT No. 1151 ofF2016/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 theSupreme Court judgment and order dated 14[th] January, 2010 wasapplied to fix the differential daily rate of casual labourers betweenGRs.308.85/- per day and Rs.353.19/- per day between Januaryand March, 2000 and October to December, 2001 respectivelyand the differential rate for the subsequent period up to July, 2004.

(b) the Chairman shall also determine the exact amount of wagesthat was payable, applying the above Supreme Court judgment the amount that was actually paid by the appellant directly to thelabourers and the wages outstanding, if any. According to thesaid Supreme Court judgment, such outstanding wages is to bepaid directly to the workers/their heirs.

In fact, the said judgment of the Supreme Court dated 14[th] January,2010 has left open other issues to be determined.

One such issue is the amount representing the profit receivableby the respondent.

The Chairman will determine the profit to be earned by therespondent out of this contract, in accordance with law.

He shall make the determination with intelligible reasons withinfour months of communication of this order, upon hearing theparties.

If any amount is determined by the Chairman to be payable to therespondent the same shall be released by the appellant to himwithin 8 weeks of making the determination.”

3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court, both the FCI as well as the contractorhave preferred the present appeals.

4. Shri N.K. Kaul, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalfof the FCI and Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate hasappeared on behalf of the Contractor in respective appeals.

4.1 Shri N.K. Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the FCI has vehemently submitted that as such the High Court in theimpugned judgment and order has clearly given a finding that after thejudgment of this Court dated 14.01.2010, the rate of wages payable tothe labourers under the said contract would be according to the ratespecified in that judgment and not on 471% ASOR basis, still the HighCourt has dismissed the appeal and has directed the CMD to calculatethe amount of wages.

4.2 It is further submitted by Shri N.K. Kaul, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the FCI that it is required to be notedthat the contract specifically provided that the rate quoted by the contractorand agreed to between the parties of 471% was above the schedule of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Arates provided in Appendix VIII of the contract. It is submitted thatAppendix VIII clearly shows that such a schedule of rate was onlyprovided regarding Item Nos. 1 to 23 and 25 of the Appendix. It issubmitted against Item No. 24, which was with respect to supply ofcasual labourers, it was specifically provided that “Relevant rate of wagesis to be paid and such rate shall abide by the decision of pending SLP asBfiled by the FCI in the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. It is submitted thatthere was no schedule of rate for Item No. 24 which was for supply ofcasual labour and therefore the claim of 471% above schedule of rates(ASOR) has no application to the quotation pertaining to supply of casuallabour.C

4.3 It is further submitted by Shri N.K. Kaul, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the FCI that the High Court has failedto consider the fact that after the order passed by the Supreme Courtdated 14.01.2010, a contempt petition was filed which came to bedismissed by this Court on 4.7.2011 as the order passed by this CourtDwas complied with. It is submitted that therefore the High Court hasmaterially erred in passing the impugned judgment and order, moreparticularly directing the CMD to re-calculate the wages.

4.4 It is further submitted by Shri N.K. Kaul, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the FCI that the High Court has materiallyEerred in directing the Chairman to determine the profit to be earned bythe contractor out of his contract. It is submitted that while passing sucha direction, the High Court has not properly appreciated and consideredthe order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010. It is submitted that inthe order dated 14.01.2010 passed by this Court, this Court never keptan issue left open, more particularly with respect to profit received byFthe contractor. It is submitted that therefore the High Court has clearlyerred in directing the CMD to determine the profit to be earned by thecontractor.

4.5 It is further submitted by Shri N.K. Kaul, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the FCI that, in fact, the contractorGpaid the wages @ Rs.106.38/- per day and if his enhanced claim of471% ASOR on the wages paid to the casual labour is accepted, in thatcase, there would be unjust enrichment to the contractor. It is submittedthat the additional claim of the contractor for Item No. 24 is Rs. 5,34,41,520/-. It is almost three times the amount due to him underthe contract. It is submitted that in any case this Court having decidedthe rate of wages to be paid to the casual labour and in view of thedirection to pay the same directly to the labour without any intermediary,there was no question of payment of any further amount as per theadditional claim made by the contractor of 471% ASOR on the wagespaid to the casual labour.

5. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing onbehalf of the contractor has vehemently submitted that as such theDivision Bench of the High Court has materially erred in referring thematter back to the Chairman of the FCI to decide certain issues andeven consider to determine the profit receivable by the contractor. It issubmitted that referring the matter back to the Chairman of the FCIwould be nothing but a futile exercise of power by the Chairman, whohas already rejected the claim of the contractor by its order dated15.03.2012.

5.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the contractor that even otherwise theDivision Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interfering withthe decision of the learned Single Judge in which the learned SingleJudge rightly held that Clause 24 of the agreement of wages of thecasual labourers is covered by 471% of ASOR, which the FCI wasobliged to pay to the contractor as per the terms of the agreement.

5.2 It is further submitted by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the contractor that, as such, both theparties were bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement andtherefore when the contractor submitted the tender with 471% ASORand 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 SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the contractor that, as such, thecontractor had to pay provident fund etc. over and above the wages tobe paid and therefore the same was required to be compensated by theFCI. It is submitted therefore that the FCI authorities are obliged to payASOR at the tune of 471% for supply of casual labourers, as categoricallylaid down in the agreement.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

A5.4 It is further submitted by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the contractor that even according toFCI the contractor shall be entitled to 471% ASOR with respect to ItemNos. 1 to 23 and 25. It is submitted that therefore there is no question ofnot paying 471% ASOR with respect to supply of casual labourers. It issubmitted therefore that the demand of the contractor making the claimBof 471% ASOR with respect of supply of casual labourers is absolutelyjust and proper and as per the agreement between the parties, which thelearned Single Judge rightly appreciated. It is submitted therefore thatthe Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in interferingwith the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge whichCwas absolutely in consonance with the terms and conditions of theagreement.6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the controversy centresDaround the interpretation of Clause 24 of the agreement and the disputeis whether the contractor is entitled to 471% ASOR in respect of allitems including item No. 24 for supply of casual labourers? It is requiredto be noted that the original contract period was from 18.01.2000 to17.01.2002 and it was extended till 13.07.2004. It is also required to beEnoted that at the time when the contract between the FCI and thecontractor was entered into, there was already a dispute pending withrespect 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 wasprovided that “relevant rate of wages is to be paid and such rate shallabide by the decision of pending SLP as filed by the FCI in the Hon’bleFSupreme Court”. It is also required to be noted that in Appendix VIIIwith respect to other items, namely item nos. 1 to 23 and 25, specificrates were mentioned, however, with respect to Item No. 24 – supply ofcasual labourers, it was blank and with respect to Item No. 24, it wasspecifically provided that the wages to be paid to the casual labourersGshall abide by the decision of the pending SLP. The contractor paid thewages to the casual labourers at the rate of Rs.106.38 per day. The firstSLP came to be dismissed by this Court on March 29, 2004. However,still the dispute continued. Contempt proceedings were initiated whichultimately reached this Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of2003. Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003 came to be finally disposedH

of by this Court on 14.01.2010 and it was directed that the FCI shall fixthe pay of the casual labourers as also of the deceased workers, whowere petitioners in the first or second case filed in the High Court, inScale-II, as revised from time to time (as on 1.1.1997, the scale wasRs.4320-7330). This Court also directed that all the payments shall bemade to the workers and legal representatives of the deceased workersdirectly without involving any contractor and other agency. Therefore,the dispute with respect to wages came to be finally settled/disposed ofby 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 thewages as per the final order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010 inCivil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003, and as per the terms and conditionsof the contract, more particularly with respect to Item No. 24 the wageswere 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 evensubsequently the workers filed contempt petition before this Court whichcame to be dismissed as this Court was of the opinion that order dated14.01.2010 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473 of 2003 has beencomplied with. That thereafter the contractor made the claim claiming471% ASOR with respect to supply of casual labourers at 471% ASORas per the claim the contractor claimed between Rs.607.43 to Rs.1225.19per day. The FCI determined and paid the wages as per the directionissued 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 bythe contractor and the amount paid to the casual labourers as determinedand paid by the FCI is as under:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2019] 14 S.C.R.

A

The aforesaid claim has been rejected by the Chairman of theFCI and according to us the same was rightly rejected by the Chairmanas the wages to the casual labourers were required to be determinedand paid as per the order passed by this Court dated 14.01.2010 in CivilAppeal Nos. 9472-9473/2003. Therefore, as such, the Division Benchof the High Court has rightly observed and held that after this Court’sjudgment and order dated 14.01.2010, the rate of wages payable to thelabourers under the subject contract would be according to the ratespecified in that judgment and not on 471% ASOR basis. We are incomplete agreement with the said finding recorded by the Division Bench.Therefore, it is observed and held that the contractor shall not be entitledto the wages to be paid to the casual labourers on 471% ASOR basisand the wages to be paid to the labourers would be at the rate specifiedin 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 thatthere is no clarity how judgment and order dated 14.01.2010 has beenapplied by the FCI to calculate the wages of the casual labourers,therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has referred the matterback to the Chairman of the FCI to consider how the differential rate ofcasual labourers between Rs. 308.85/- per day and Rs.353.19/- per daybetween January and March, 2000 and October to December, 2001respectively and the differential rate for the subsequent period up toJuly, 2004 has been determined and the Chairman is directed to determinethe exact amount of wages that was payable, applying the judgment andorder 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 theHigh Court directing the Chairman to determine the profit earned by thecontractor out of his contract is concerned, the same is not sustainableat all. The Division Bench of the High Court has observed that thejudgment and order of this Court dated 14.01.2010 has left open otherissues to be determined. We do not find anything in the order dated14.01.2010. On bare reading of the order dated 14.01.2010 there doesnot appear to be left open other issues to be determined, as observed bythe High Court in the impugned judgment and order. Under thecircumstances, that part of the direction issued by the Division Benchdirecting the Chairman to determine the profit earned by the contractordeserves to be quashed and set aside.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theappeal 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 thecasual labourers shall be entitled to the wages according to the ratesspecified in the order dated 14.01.2010 passed by this Court in CivilAppeal Nos. 9472-9473/2003 and the contractor shall not be entitled toB471% ASOR basis with respect to supply of casual labourers as claimedby him. Therefore, it is specifically observed and held that the FCI shallbe liable to pay the wages payable to the casual labourers under thesubject contract according to the rates specified in the judgment andorder dated 14.01.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-C9473/2003 and not on 471% ASOR basis. It goes without saying thatthe 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 thedetermination of the wages as per the judgment and order dated14.01.20120 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 9472-9473/2003,Dmore particularly as contained in paragraph a & b of the operative portionof the impugned order. However, that part of the direction issued by theDivision Bench in the operative portion of the order by which theChairman is directed to determine the profit earned by the contractor,the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal preferred by theEFCI is partly allowed in terms of the above. Consequently, the appealpreferred by the contractor being Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No.35242/2019 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

F

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals disposed of.

G

H