1 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT :: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: Smt. D.Madhavi Krishna Smt. D.Madhavi Krishna
Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl.
Dist. & Sessions Judge,
K A R I M N A G A R.
Wednesday, this the 20th day of April, 2022.
O.S.No. 36 of 2014
Between : -
1.Mengani Yellaiah, S/o: Ramaiah, age; 62 years, Occ: President of Sri. Venkateshwara Hamali Labour contract Parasapara Sahayaka Sahakara Sangam Ltd. H.No.9-2-30. Bhagath Nagar Locality of Karimnagar town proper (Died).
2.Mengani Laxmi, W/o: Mengani Yellaiah, Age: 63 years, Occ: Household, (wife of deceased).
3.Mengani Raju, S/o: Late Mengani Yellaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Private work. (Elder son of the deceased).
4.Mengani Sateesh, s/o: Late Mengani Yellaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Private Employee.
5.Mengani Karthik, S/o: Late Mengani Yellaiah, Age; 29 years, Occ: Private Employee.
6.Mengani Kalyani, D/o: Late Mengani Yellaiah, W/o: Santhosh Kondari, Age: 29 years, Occ: Household, All are R/o: H.No.9-2-30. Bhagath Nagar Locality of Karimnagar town proper.
(Plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 are added as per I.A.No.575/2021, dt:03.12.2021).
.....Plaintiffs
And
1.The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Post Box No.86, HACA Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Public Garden Road, Hyderabad.
2.District Manager, (Area Manager), Food Corporation of India, Karimnagar. ….Defendants. * * * 2 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
This suit has come before me on 01.04.2022for final hearing in the presence of Sri Rai Kankaiah counsel for the Plaintiffs, and of Sri. P.Prabhakar Rao,Advocate forDefendants,upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following: -
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of money of
Rs.21,94,973/- with future interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till its full realization.
2.The case of the plaintiffs as could be seen from the plaint averments in brief is that the plaintiff No.1 who died during the suit proceedings was the President of Sri. Venkateshwara Hamali Labour contract Paraspara Sahayaka Sahakara Sangam Ltd which is a registered firm vide.No.AMC/KNR/DCO/2001/260, dated:23-09-2001.
The main objective of this society is to provide labours to the needy organizations for loading, unloading and transporting material from place to place as per the requirement of the consignee. Many labourers work under the control of plaintiff No.1 to achieve this objective and the plaintiff would participate in the tenders called for by various organizations requiring labour and after obtaining the contract in his favour, he would supply the required labour and would pay the wages to the labour in the first instance from his pocket and would then receive the amount from the consignee.
3 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 2 (a)The defendants who are the officials of Food Corporation of India wanted the labour for their godown at Nagunur for which they have called for tender from the eligible labour contractors. The plaintiff No.1 was one among the other bidders who offered the supply of labour and the bid was finalized in favour of the plaintiff
No.1, after observing the formalities and the plaintiff No.1 thus became successful bidder and contract was awarded to the plaintiff
No.1 by the defendants with effect from 05-9-2003 and the period of contract was for two years i.e., from 5-9-2003 to 4-9-2005 and having agreed to provide the labour for the loading and unloading activity of the food grains from the godown at Nagunur to various places in and around Karimnagar city. Having achieved the contract, the plaintiff No.1 engaged the required number of labour for this purpose and carried the contract wok without any adverse comment from anyone concerned and he was meticulous to carry out the contract work awarded to him by the defendants.
2(b) Prior to awarding labour contract in favour of plaintiff
No.1, the contract was with other contract whose work was not up to the expected standard of the defendants. Therefore, the defendants have terminated the contract work of the earlier contractor, but the old labour who were engaged by the previous contractor brought pressure on the plaintiff No.1 to engage their services through the officials of the defendants, the plaintiff No.1 has engaged the old 4 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 labour but the old labourer for whom the defendants recommended for engaging by the plaintiff No.1 did not co-operate in handling the work and under compelling circumstances, the plaintiff No.1 had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide
W.P.No.259/2004 and obtained orders in W.P.M.P.No.360/2004 to engage the labours and the old labours instead of co-operating with the plaintiff in handling the work, they create hurdles in carrying out of the work smoothly as these old labourers are the henchmen of the old contractor by name Sri. Annamaneni Madhavarao, the then president of Rice Millers Association who has maintained rivalry with the first plaintiff because he was competitor in the contractors for
Nagunur F.C.I hired godowns and as the plaintiff No.1 has owned the tender at the lowest rate of 30% ASOR for handling operations
Rs.27/- per MT for transportation of ex hired depot Nagunur to
Railway Goods shed Karimnagar, whereas it was previous about 200% ASOR for handling operations accepted and maintained with the Rice Millers Association by F.C.I.
2 ( C ) The plaintiff No.1 agreed to work at the lowest rate which is most economical to the defendants and this has aggravated the enmity between the plaintiff No.1 and the previous contractor Sri
A.Madhava Rao. Even the officials of the defendants did not co- operate with the plaintiff No.1 in carrying the H& T work. Even before the expiry of the contract period of the plaintiff No.1, the officials of 5 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 the defendants have dehired the godown without the actual consultation with the plaintiff No.1 in whose favour the contract work for supply of labour was awarded. For the de-hiring of godowns the plaintiff No.1 or his labour are not at all responsible and it is the defendants who went one sided in dehiring the godowns without the knowledge of the plaintiff No.1. When the godowns were dehired, the plaintiff No.1 approached various authorities of the defendants and also Revenue authorities and Assistant Commissioner of Labour seeking their intervention in the disputes created by the old labourers. On that the above old labour got annoyed with the plaintiff No.1 have resorted to an illegal acts of manhandling and causing injuries to the plaintiff No.1 with a view to kill him and the plaintiff No.1 was hospitalized for a considerable time. The above said acts were published in local news papers on 02-12-2003. Due to the above acts the plaintiff No.1 suffered huge losses and paid lakhs of rupees to the Railway department towards demurrhage charges.
Even after all this, the authorities of the defendants did not support to the plaintiff No.1 in carrying out the contract properly. The plaintiff No.1 under compelling circumstances had approached A.P
State Legal Services Authority for police protection for carrying out the contract work. The said representation was forwarded by the
Legal Services Authority to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar vide Lr.No.617/LSA/2004, dt:10-2-2004. Plaintiff No.1 also requested 6 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar for intervention in the dispute for amicable settlement on 24-7-2004.
2 (d) It is further submitted that at the time of entering into the contract, the plaintiff No.1 had deposited an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- as security deposit as per the letter of the defendants
No.SRM/FCI/Hyderabad No. S& C dated:13-8-2003 contd. Dt:5-9-2003 i.e., Rs.4,00,000/- through demand draft No.943173, 943174, 943175 besides Rs.1,00,000/- as E.M.D. Deposit and authorized the defendants to recover the balance Rs.5,00,000/- from the bills payable to him during the contract period. Due to sudden and unforeseen act of dehiring of godown by the officials of the defendants, the plaintiff No.1 suffered huge losses and there was no reply for payment of the due amounts in respect of the bills and security deposit. Ultimately the plaintiff No.1 approached the
Member of Parliament, Karimnagar who in turn sent a letter to the
District Manager, F.C.I Karimnagar (defendant No.2) on 16-5-2010 for payment of the due amount which worked out to Rs.8,07,178/- which was due to him from the defendants for the work already carried out by him and also sought the refund of the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- which was paid and collected by the defendants towards security deposit thus a total of Rs.18,07,193/-. On receipt of the letter from the Member of Parliament, the defendants issued a letter No S& C/13 (8)/2013 – Cont. Dt:24-6-2010 with false and concocted reasons 7 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 informing that they have forfeited the amount of Rs.8,07,178/- which was payable by the defendants to the plaintiff No.1 on the unfounded reason that the plaintiff No.1 did not carry out the contractual obligations as per the terms and conditions of the agreement which has resulted in delay in dehiring the godown and payment made to the owner of the hired godown rent as a result of court decree.
2 (e)In fact the plaintiff No.1 was not a party to the said suit referred by the defendants and as such the said decree, if any, is not binding on the plaintiff No.1 and it is not the suit filed by or against the plaintiff No.1. This is a dispute purely between the defendants and some other party and the plaintiff No.1 cannot be made responsible for the said suit or its suit. Even as per the knowledge of the plaintiff No.1 the court decree was passed against the defendants for their improper conduct of the suit and as such the defendants cannot make the plaintiff No.1 responsible for a dispute to which he was not a party. Thus the ground on which the defendants have forfeited the amount payable to the plaintiff No.1 is not valid and unlawful. If the forfeiture of the amount from the plaintiff No.1 was for any valid reasons i.e., for any fault or violation of the contract work by the plaintiff No.1 he could have to face it but here it is not the case.
2 (f) The defendants tried to cause unlawful loss to the plaintiff No.1 for the suit to which he has no concern. Even while the 8 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 contract was awarded in favour of the plaintiff No.1 for a period of two years without any notice, the contract was terminated even prior to the expiry of the contract period which is not only illegal, arbitrary, violation of terms of contract and for not any valid reasons. The hiring or dehiring of godowns is the subject matter purely between the godown owner and the defendants for which the plaintiff No.1 had no connection. The only duty of the plaintiff No.1 was to provide the labour for loading, unloading or transporting the material of the defendants. Even the Railway department imposing demurrage charges is for the fault of the defendants for having not instructed for the shifting of the material from the Railway premises to the godown or vice versa and the plaintiff No.1 cannot shift the same on his own unless instructed for. Thus the demurrages if any paid by the defendants to railway department is for their own fault and the plaintiff No.1 cannot be made responsible for their mistakes. The plaintiff No.1 never violated the contractual obligations and he carried out the work in terms of contract without any single or small deviation.
2 (g)Even the maintenance of the accounts and furnishing the same to the plaintiff No.1 is totally against the actual record and they made falsifications of accounts intentionally to cause loss to the plaintiff No.1. These figures have been introduced by the defendants only to gave reply to the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff 9 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
dated:05-11-2012 calling upon them to pay the due amounts.
Besides the above, the plaintiff No.1 had deposited an amount of
Rs.3,94,973/- as E.P.F amount for the labour worked under him. On termination of the contract, the E.P.F amount paid by the plaintiff should also have been refunded to him but the defendants intentionally did not do so.
2 (h)Having been aggrieved by the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff No.1 approached the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karimnagar which was not numbered by the forum on the ground that they have no power to adjudicate the dispute as the relationship between the plaintiff No.1 and defendants does not come under the purview of “Consumer” as defined in the Consumer
Protection Act. When there was no other go, the plaintiff No.1 had approached the Hon’ble Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,
Karimnagar with P.L.C.No.905/2013, but as the defendants did not agreed to settle the disputes amicably and passed the orders dt:5-7- 2013 directing the plaintiff No.1 to approach competent Civil Court for recovery of money due to him by the defendants. Due to the above illegal acts of the defendants, the plaintiff No.1 have made his life miserable and to starve and not in a position to maintain himself and his family members. Hence the suit.
3.After the death of original plaintiff, plaintiff Nos.2 to 6, legal-heirs of plaintiff No.1 were impleaded.
10 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 4.The defendants filed written statement denying material allegations of plaint and have contended that plaintiff No.1 cannot sue in his personal capacity and he has to file this suit in the name of
Sri Venkateshwara Hamali Labour contract Paraspara Sahayaka
Sangam, Karimnagar, as per bye-laws and Society Registration Act.
That the original plaintiff has to take leave from the Court to sue the defendants on behalf of society. That the plaintiff No.1 also has not filed any authorization and resolution of the sangam conferring power to file this suit, in the absence of the same the suit is hit by
Order XXIX C.P.C R/w Rule 32 C.R.P and also under Rule 15 C.R.P and the plaintiff has not filed letter of authority or authorization or leave to prosecute this case nor filed minutes or resolution of Sangham.
4 (a)This defendant is not aware of the aims and objectives of the plaintiff, as no certified copy of bye laws or resolution or any literature of Sangham are filed. The plaintiff cannot proceed with the case, as he is not holding valid authorization and to prosecute in this court. The plaintiff No.1 filed documents in this case which are not original or certified copies. Hence the defendants denied the veracity of documents filed by the plaintiff No.1. This defendant has followed the procedure for calling the tenders and hence no irregularity in calling tenders or award of contract for execution of work was committed. This plaintiff No.1 society was qualified bidder in the said contract.
11 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 4(b)It has nothing to do with direction given to plaintiff to hire or dehire godowns for the use of defendant and it is not the duty of the defendants to inform all the affairs to the plaintiff or other persons. The disputes of defendant to the others is not related to the plaintiff on other side, the defendant also nothing to do with relatives of plaintiff No.1 with others in his business. The plaintiff might have committed errors in during wagons loading. This defendant nothing to do with disputes of plaintiff with Railway Authorities. The plaintiff may be subjected to prove all allegations strictly. No cause of action arises for this case against this defendants, the alleged cause of action by the plaintiff is utopian and imaginary. The suit amount is not based on true calculation.
4 ( c) Plaintiff society was appointed for handling and transport contractor at F.C.I Hired depot Nagunur for a period of two years from 5-9-2003 to 4-9-2005. Due to dehiring of godown on 24-10- 2004 the H & T contract was terminated with effect from 25-12- 2004, as per tender clause IX of terms and conditions of contract FCI
Regional Office vide letter No. S& C. 13/08/2003- Cont Dt:25-11-2004 terminated contract and that copy was supplied to plaintiff. It is submitted that plaintiff has not deposited Rs.10,00,000/-. The work contract due for payment is Rs.8,07,178/- are incorrect. But rather the security only deposited Rs.5,00,000/- (50% of Security Deposit amount) and Rs.3,39,609/- adjusted towards H & T running bills and 12 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 amount sum of Rs.22,695/- was released (Ref as per JE of 305) but the amount recovered is Rs.8,07,178/-.
4 (d)As per defendant Corporation vide tender clause XIV of terms and conditions, governing contract (volume of work) the defendant does not guarantee volume of work or any particular pattern of service at any time or through period of contract and mere mention of any item of work in the contract does not itself create or confer any right on the contractor or plaintiff to demand work to all or at any time thereof should necessarily or exclusively entrusted to them.
4(e)The contract shall remain in force as per clause IX of terms and conditions for two years only, but the Senior Regional
Manager can terminate the contract at any time during its currency without assigning any reason by giving (30) days notice to the last known address of contractor and it is binding on the contractor, that is plaintiff No.1.
4 (f)As per clause VII (A & B) liability of personnel and clause 7 (1) (I) of payment of wages of workers terms and conditions of governance of contract, all the liabilities of worker engaged by contractors is of contractor and to be settled by contractors only in terms of Indian Factories Act, Workers Compensation Act, E.P.F Act etc., That the contractor shall liable for authorization for EPF fund by
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and the scheme there under,in 13 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 respect of labour employed by the contractor and the wages were to be settled to the workers by the contractor himself. As per minimum wages, rate were to be settled to the workers by the contractor himself. As per minimum wages, rate wages or piece rate wages of work notified by appropriate authorities and the contractor has to follow, maintain wage book, work slip, the register of unpaid wages, register of fine and deductions etc., Under VII (I) of terms of tender regarding payment wages to the workers.
4 (g)As per tender clause XVII delays, strikes etc., the contractor is responsible for delays and strikes because the workers are under control of contractor and the defendants Senior Regional manager (Now General Manager) is not responsible for the same.
Everything under above provision the contractor alone responsible but not defendants.
4(h)The contractor (Plaintiff) society shall be responsible of good conduct of his workers and shall compensate loss to the
Corporation (defendant), for the loss arising from negligence & carelessness, want of skill of misconduct by workers, agents or representatives.
4 (i)That as per clause XII (e) of terms and conditions of contract against money deposited by contractor or payable to the contractor may be appropriated and set off against any claim of 14 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
Corporation for loss caused by the contractor in execution of work and non payment of wages by the contractors. In this matter the labours did not allow the vacation of godown and the Contractor did not come forward to settle the payments of labour and upon the advise of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Warangal this defendant has paid Rs.1,86,000/- to the workers through A.M. (D) Nagunur on 21/22-10-2004 and the amount was recovered from contractor later from the pending bills on 20-6-2004. Due to the non-vacating godown from 20-6-2004 to 20-10-2004 vide AM(Stg) no.S & C 5 (2)/2002 Stg/2005/IV/II dated: 28-9-2005 sum of Rs.12,57,440/- paid to the owner and the said amount of Rs.8,07,178/- is recovered through S.D. The plaintiff is still liable to pay Rs.4,50,262/- to the defendants, because of losses caused by the plaintiff and the contract is terminated on 25-12-2004 as per clause IX of terms and conditions of contract vide Regional Office letter no S &C 13/08/2003/Cont Dt:25-11-2004. The contractor/plaintiff is still due sum of Rs.4.50,262/- to the defendant Corporation. Accordingly, defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
5.On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:
1.Whether the forfeiture of the security deposit of plaintiff by defendants is valid and binding on the plaintiff?
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.21,94,973/- from the defendant with costs and interest as prayed for?
15 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
3. To what relief ?
Additional Issue framed on 02-3-2021.
Whether the plaintiff can sue in his individual capacity?
6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A27 documents and got examined PW.2. On the other hand, Manager, General, F.C.I
District Office, Karimnagar is examined as DW.1 and he got marked
Ex.B1 to Ex.B30.
7.Heard both sides. Perused the record. Both parties filed written arguments.
8.Documentary Evidence :-
The plaintiff namely Mengani Yellaiah filed the suit for recovery of amount due to Sri Venkteshwara Hamali Labour contract
Paraspara Sahayaka Sahakara Sangham Limited. Said Yellaiah is
President of the said sangaham. He filed his chief affidavit as PW.1.
He got marked Ex.A1 to A27 documents which are described below.
9.Ex.A1 is original acquittance register for payment of wages to the Hamalis working at hired godowns, Nagnur by the H &
T contractor for the period September 2003 to June 2004 which shows that as on 7-7-2004 an amount of Rs.1,01,029/- was disbursed to 135 members of Hamalis. It also shows that an endorsement as to payment of Rs.1,72,727/- was paid towards labour wages to 53 16 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 persons as on 8-7-2004. On 9-7-2004 wages paid to 18 hamalis. On 12-7-2004 wages paid to 32 Hamalis. Ex.A2 is original letter written by defendant No.1 dated 20-8-2003 addressed to plaintiffs’ sangam accepting tender of the plaintiff.
10.Ex.A3 is original Award of H & T contract at F.C.I
Karimnagar hired godown dated:5-9-2003 given by defendant No.2.
According to which plaintiff deposited Rs.5,00,000/- towards security deposit. Ex.A4 is letter dated:8-12-2003 issued by Assistant
Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar to the President of plaintiffs’ sangam calling remarks in the dispute between Management and
F.C.I godown hamalis regarding payment of wages in view of representation made by the Hamalis dated:27-11-2003, this letter enclosed the representation of Hamalis.
11.Ex.A5 is similar letter to plaintiff asked to furnish detailed remarks from the plaintiff Sangam in the matter and to attend joint meeting which is to be held on 5-1-2004 at 11.00 A.M., for amicable settlement. This letter is addressed to plaintiff, defendant No.2 and
Assistant Manager, F.C.I godown Nagunur Karimnagar. Ex.A6 is notice
dated 3-1-2004 given by Division Administrative Officer to the
plaintiff and K.Raghavulu, President of Hamali Sangam, F.C.I godown
Nagunur for enquiry. Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 are similar notices dated:20-2- 2004 and 12-3-2004 addressed by R.D.O Karimnagar.
17 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
12. Ex.A9 is forwarding letter by Member Secretary, APSLSA forwarding representation dated:27-1-2004 made by PW.1 herein to
Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar for taking necessary action.
Ex.A10 is request letter by PW.1 dated:17-6-2004 to defendant No.2 for release bills for work done to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-. This letter also has contained seal of defendant No.2 office in token of receipt. Ex.A11 is received copy of application of PW.1 dated:29-6- 2004 to Assistant commissioner of Labour (for short A.C.L),
Karimnagar stating that Sri.K.Raghavulu President of F.C.I godown
Hamalis refused to load boiled rice in wagons so to advise him to attend the problem and due to stopping work of wagon loading plaintiff suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000/-.
13.Ex.A12 is letter of PW.1 dated:6-8-2004 addressed to
Assistant Commissioner of labour, Karimnagar stating that during wagon loading hamalis of Nagunur created so many types of problems and due to delay in loading, since 2004 four special boiled rice dispatched from Nagnur, he incurred loss hence requested to intervene in this matter and to advise the representative of hamalis to attend loading of wagons balance stock available in F.C.I hired godowns as agreed by them during meeting held in the chamber of
A.C.L Karimnagar on 27-7-2004.
14.Ex.A13 is notice issued by ACL, Karimnagar dated:
15-9-2004 to the Manager, F.C.I godown Nagunur and to PW.1 called 18 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 them to attend meeting held on 23-9-2004. Ex.A14 is copy of orders of Hon’ble High court dated:8-1-2004 in W.P.M.P.No.360/2004 in
W.P.No.259/2004, said petition was filed by plaintiff against defendants and another. In these orders plaintiff was permitted to engage (80) persons of his own society apart from engaging among existing contract labour as per agreement. Ex.A15 is resolution
dated:7-3-2010 passed by plaintiff sangam giving authorization to
Pw.1 who is its President to recover due amounts for work done to
F.C.I godown H & T (Rs.14,98,466/-) it shows that without the consent of the President, District Manager credited Rs.4,60,000/- in the account No.36365 of M/s Rice Millers Grain House Ltd., Nagunur.
15. Ex.A16 is office copy of notice dated : 5-11-2012 given by PW.1 to defendant No.1 stating that F.C.I authorities due an amount of Rs.18,07,178/- i.e., Rs.10,00,000/- security deposit and H & T bill amount of Rs.8,07,178/- and demanding to deposit said amount to PW.1 within fifteen days of receipt of notice. Ex.A17 is its postal receipt. Ex.A18 is original request letter dated:5-3-2007 made by K.Ashok, Manager (Contracts), F.C.I (D1) to PW.1 requesting to furnish details of amount Rs.14,98,000/- said to have available with
F.C.I for further necessary action. Ex.A19 is Certificate issued by
District Officer, F.C.I Karimnagar dated:24-4-2008 certifying that plaintiff Sangam represented by its president M.Yellaiah appointed for handling transport contract work at F.C.I hired godown Nagunur 19 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
Rail during 2003-05 with effect from 8-9-2003, during period the contractor handled stock receipts 48756 MTS and Issues 49587 MTS and the amount of Rs.26,62,206/- paid. It is certificate of performance and the turn over quantity is nearly Rs.27,00,000/-.
16.Ex.A20 is docket order dated:5-7-2013 in P.L.C
No.905/2013 on the file of D.L.S.A karimnagar in the petition filed by the plaintiff against both defendants. Since the issue is not settled plaintiff was advised to approach the Civil court. Ex.A21 is original petition Dt:19-8-2013 made by the plaintiff to Secretary, D.L.S.A
Karimnagar requesting to recommend higher court to provide free legal aid. Ex.A22 is Orders of Secretary, D.L.S.A Karimnagar dt:28-8- 2013 appointing Sri. J.Karunakar Advocate, as legal Aid to file case in competent court, on behalf of PW.1. But the plaintiff did not availed the services of free legal aid. Ex.A23 is certificate issued for exemption of court fee. Ex.A24 is original registration certificate of plaintiff sangam. Ex.A25 is letter dated:28-9-2001 written by District
Co-operative Officer/Registrar, Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies
Karimnagar to the plaintiff sending R.C (Ex.A24) and bye laws.
Ex.A26 is certificate dated:18-2-2002 issued by Ware House Manger,
Central Ware House, Karimnagar about PW.1 stating that PW.1 was one of active member of Central Ware Housing Corporation Hamali labour contract cooperative Society Limited Karimnagar. Ex.A27 is performance certificate dated 28-9-2004 issued by Pasidi Agro Tech 20 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
Karimnagar in favour of plaintiff sangam which was appointed for handling and wagons transport contract works at D.C.M.S hired godown at Karimnagar for three years period from 28-9-2004 to 28- 9-2007. It also shows that during the period contractor handled stock receipts 36,000 M.T.S and Issues 39,000 M.T.S and amount
Rs.30,50,000/- paid.
17.Coming to the documents filed by the defendants Dw.1 got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B30 documents. Ex.B1 is Corbon copy of appointment letter dt:23-8-2003 issued by District manger, F.C.I,
District Office Karimnagar in favour of plaintiff Sangam, accepting their tender and further asked to furnish Rs.10,00,000/- security deposit. Ex.B2 is Corbon copy of letter written by the plaintiff
dated:29-8-2003 sending three demand drafts for Rs.40,000/-,
Rs.40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- and informed that already remitted
Rs.4,00,000/- (EMD) while filing tender as earnest money. So 50% of security deposit is furnished and requesting that the balance 50% may be recovered at 5% each from admitted bills and to issue work order. Ex.B3 is confirmation letter dated:29-8-2003 issued by District
Manger, Forwarding Ex.B2 letter to D1/Senior Regional Manger to consider the request of the plaintiff. Ex.B4 is office copy of letter
dt:5-9-2003 issuing work order to plaintiff sangam and asked the
plaintiff to submit labour license obtained from Assistant Labour of 21 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
Commissioner along with list of Labour and details and income tax clearance certificate, etc.,.
18.Ex.B5 is office copy of letter dated;22-1-2004 issued by
District Manager to plaintiff Sangam asking to confirm whether plaintiff paid labour wages and informed that in case of any less/excess payment of transport charges if any etc., incurred by F.C.I will be recovered out of his bills/security deposit. Ex.B6 is letter
dated:24-2-2004 issued by A.C.L Karimnagar to the Manger, F.C.I
godown Nagunur about representation made by 10 persons on 9.1.2004 reporting non payment of wages by Contractor, F.C.I godown Nagunur. Ex.B7 is letter send by D1 Dt;11.3.2004 to the plaintiff advise to carry out work smoothly. Ex.B8 is letter by District
Manager dt:1-7-2004 addressed to A.C.L Karimnagar stating that inspite of direction given by A.C.L Karimnagar the labour did not load the wagons till 5.00 P.M., accordingly wagons cancelled on 30-6-2004 putting F.C.I in loss of Rs.10,000/- towards wagon registration fee and
Rs.15,000/-, towards demurrage charges, due to non payment of wages by the plaintiff the labour creating troubles and creating obstacles in clearance of stock and dehiring of godown.
19. Ex.B9 is Report dt:1-5-2004 by Assistant manager, F.C.I submitted to District Manger, F.C.I Karimnagar stating that the
Railway levied Rs.55,200/- towards demurrage charges. Ex.B10 is office copy of letter dt:6-5-2004 to the plaintiff send by District 22 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
Manager F.C.I advising to improve performance and further asked to obtain license for 160 labourers and to issue I.D cards and to give compliance report and further asked to deposit E.P.F dues and further to deposit Rs.55,000/- demurrage charges. The letter also shows that an amount of Rs.20,000/- is due by the plaintiff towards hamali charges. Plaintiff also acknowledged in receipt of Ex.B10.
Ex.B11 is similar letter dt:20-5-2004. Ex.B12 is similar letter dt:26-5- 2004. In Ex.B12 it was observed that inspite of advises plaintiff has not improved performance and not deposited Rs.55,200/- and on his failure the amount will be recovered from H& T bills and plaintiff was asked to explain why he did not paid Rs.20,000/- hamali charges as advised to pay under Ex.B10 and asked to send compliance report.
20.Ex.B13 is letter addressed to the plaintiff dt:3-6-2004 by
District Manager (Defendant No.2) stating that plaintiff has not supplied adequate number of trucks to load boiled rice to Sevur on 1-6-2004 and loading was very slow and asked to give explanation.
Ex.B14 is similar letter dated:7-6-2004 informing the plaintiff that if rakes are not loaded in time and if the godown is not vacated by 19- 6-2004 entire responsibility shall be fixed on plaintiff and he has to incur any loss suffered by F.C.I. Ex.B15 is corbon copy of letter addressed to the plaintiff dated:14-6-2004 by Assistant Manger (Depot) F.C.I intimating non attending of work by the Hamalis and 23 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 asked to advise the labour to attend work by loading special rakes by 19-6-2004.
21.Ex.B16 is similar letter dt;15-6-2004 informing him that the work was held up due to non attendance of labour at H& T
Nagnur and the plaintiff was requested to send his labour to commence the work. Plaintiff was further informed that the rent of godown also to be paid by him if the godowns are not vacated before 19-6-2004. Ex.B17 is letter addressed to second defendant by
Enforcement Officer, Karimnagar dt:22-6-2004 about non compliance of provisions of E.P.F and M.P Act 1952 by the contractor of Nagunur godowns. Its copy also marked to the plaintiff. Ex.B18 is letter addressed by second defendant to the Enforcement Officer, office of the Enforcement, Karimnagar dt:30-6-2004 stating that the contractor was repeatedly instructed by the office of second defendant for compliance of provisions of E.P.F and M.P Act 1952 and further requested to intimate the actual number to deposit amount.
22.Ex.B19 is office copy of letter dated:11-8-2004 addressed by Assistant Manager (cont) to the Assistant Manger, (Accounts)
F.C.I Karimnagar about remitting employees provident fund amount in respect of H & T contractor, Nagunur godown labourers. Ex.B20 is office copy of letter dt:4-9-2004 by the second defendant to the plaintiff advising the plaintiff to settle the wages dispute with the labourers and to inform his readiness to work and further informed 24 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 that he was solely responsible for the delay in dehiring godown at
Nagunur. Ex.B21 is Office copy of letter dt:15-9-2004 informing delay in dehiring of godown due to labour problems for that plaintiff was solely responsible. Ex.B22 is similar letter Dt;20-10-2004 informing his failure to make payment of wages to the labourers.
Ex.B23 is letter Dt:4-11-2004 by second defendant to the first defendant about termination of H & T contract awarded to the plaintiff Sangam, in view of vacating Nagunur godowns, w.e.f., 20-10- 2004.
23.Ex.B24 is letter by Assistant Manager, (cont) to the plaintiff informing termination of contract with effect from 25-12- 2004. Ex.B25 is letter dated:7-12-2004 by the second defendant to the first defendant sending acknowledgment of notice by the plaintiff's Sangam. Ex.B25 enclosed with acknowledgement signed by the plaintiff/PW.1. Ex.B26 is copy of letter Dt;13-9-2005 by second defendant to the first defendant informing that the contractor has failed to fulfill contractual obligations i.e., payment of wages to the labourers and as per the directions of Dy Commissioner of Labour,
Warangal, wages paid to the labourers by the F.C.I, U/Sec.21 of the
Contract, being Principal employer.
24.Ex.B27 is fax message dt:2-12-2005 to Area Manager,
F.C.I regarding forfeiture of security deposits Rs.8,07,178/-. Ex.B28 is authorization dt:2-4-2019 given to Gajula Vannur Basha, Area 25 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
Manager, F.C.I., Karimnagar to represent F.C.I. Ex.B29 is True copy of notification dt:6-2-2006 about giving authorization to the officers to represent proceedings before the court or tribunal on behalf of F.C.I.
Ex.B30 is authorization given to DW.1/ Dharmendra Kushram to depose evidence on behalf of District Office, F.C.I., Karimnagar.
Additional ISSUE :-
“Whether the plaintiff can sue in his individual capacity?”
25.It is the plaintiff who approached the court of law seeking some relief at first instance. So it is the burden of plaintiff to prove his case. If the plaintiff able to discharge the burden lies on him then the burden shifts on other side. Then the role of defendant starts to prove his case and to discharge his burden. Admittedly, PW.1 who is said to be President of Sri Venkateshwara Hamali Labour Contract
Paraspara Sahayaka Sangam Ltd.,. (For short plaintiff sangam) In this regard since from the beginning the defendants have contended that the plaintiff by name Mengani Yellaiah filed the suit in his individual capacity but not in the capacity of president of said Sangam.
26.Initially this issue was not framed. But after adducing evidence by both sides this additional issue was framed. The parties did not adduce any additional evidence after framing this issue. PW.1 categorically admitted that the Sri Venkateshwara Hamali Labour
Contract Paraspara Sahayaka Sangam Ltd., is a registered one.
Initially the registration certificate of above said Sangam is not filed 26 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
before the court along with plaint. But later it is filed i.e., Ex.A24.
Ex.A15 is authorization given by members of above said Sangam in favour of PW.1 to recover due amount to their Sangam. But it did not disclosed authorizing plaintiff to file suit before any court representing said Sangam and authorizing him to depose evidence on behalf of Sangam, PW.1 also admitted the same. Admittedly, PW.1 also has not obtained any leave from the court under Rule 15 of Civil
Rules of Practice, to institute the suit.
27.The counsel for defendants specifically referred about
Order 29 C.P.C. which reads that : in suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed or verified on behalf of the corporation by the Secretary or by any Director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. Therefore, if a person signing the pleading shall have necessary authority to do so.
28.As per Rule 15 of C.R.P plaintiff shall obtain leave to institute a suit, the plaint shall be accompanied by an affidavit. But here it is missing. As per Rule 32 of C.R.P., plaintiff shall take permission from the court to represent the sangam by filing a petition in a prescribed proforma along with his affidavit.
29.In the present case at the time of filing of the suit, plaintiff has not obtained any such permission from the court nor required authority from the sangam to file this suit before the court 27 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 and to depose evidence on behalf of sangam. Under Ex.A15, PW.1 is not authorized to institute this suit and to represent the sangam
before the court. Therefore, it is clear that by the time of filing this
suit plaintiff has no authorization from the sangam and he also did not take leave from the court to depose evidence on behalf of
Sangam. Moreover, plaintiff filed this suit not in the capacity of
President of sangam but he filed the suit in his individual capacity.
PW.2 also categorically stated that the suit is filed by plaintiff in his individual capacity. Hence it is held that plaintiff cannot sue in his individual capacity and the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly this issue is answered.
ISSUE NO.1:-
Whether the forfeiture of the security deposit of plaintiff by defendants is valid and binding on the plaintiff?
30. It is the case of plaintiff that before expiry of contract period which is during 5-9-2003 to 4-9-2005, the defendants terminated the contract with effect from 25-12-2004. In cross examination it is suggest to
PW.1 that his contract was terminated on 25-4-2004. The documents of the defendants marked under Ex.B5 to B23 clearly shows that from the beginning of contract itself due to various reasons like non payment of wages to the labour by the plaintiff the labour did not worked upto mark and they are reluctant in attending wagons loading work resulting which the F.C.I godown could not vacated in time consequently Railway levied 28 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 demurrage charges on F.C.I. The documents of the defendants also shows that the defendant No.2 several times advised the plaintiff to improve the work performance and to pay wages to the labour in time and to submit license obtained from A.C.L Karimnagar and to send compliance report. But there is no response from the plaintiff nor given reply to Ex.B13 and Ex.B14 letters. Plaintiff also was warned several times in writing that due to non cooperation of his labour defendants have suffered financially and also made the plaintiff responsible for the same. It is also specifically warned the plaintiff in Ex.B14, Ex.B16, Ex.B20, Ex.B21, that the security deposit amount shall be forfeited to cover the loss incurred by the defendant and
F.C.I due to fault of plaintiff and his labour.
31. The defendants further stated that as per clause 9 of terms and conditions of the contract the defendants corporation has authority to terminate the contract without assigning any reasons by issuing (30) days notice. But PW.1 denied the same. Under E.B23, plaintiff was informed one month before as to termination of contract w.e.f., 25-12-2004. As per
Ex.B24, as the godown vacated on 20-10-2004, defendant not required the contract. PW.1 denied having receipt of 30 days notice for termination of contract. He also denied that the defendants adjusted Rs.3,39,609/- towards H & T recovery bills and paid Rs.22,695/-. It is further alleged that as per clause 14, the defendants did not give any guarantee to the plaintiff sangam to provide work. As per contract it is the duty of the plaintiff to pay 29 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 labour charges for that the defendants are no way concerned with. As per clause 17, the defendants are not concerned with any delay or strikes that were done during contract period.
32. PW.2 Swargam Chandramouli, retired Superintendent of central ware housing corporation deposed that he helped the plaintiff in carrying out of H & T work smoothly as plaintiff is illiterate. His evidence that the defendants are due an amount of Rs.21,94974/- is heresay evidence. PW.2 never worked in plaintiff sangam in any capacity. His chief affidavit did not disclosed that what document is scribed by him out of Ex.A1 to Ex.A27 documents. Therefore the evidence of PW.2 did not take the case of plaintiff further.
33. DW.1/Manager General, F.C.I, District Office, Karimnagar deposed evidence in support of case of the defendants. He joined in office, at
Karimangar on 29-6-2018. He also stated that plaintiff deposited five lakhs rupees only while getting contract. He denied the suggestion that defendants collected 10 lakhs caution deposit. His evidence also shows that there was no agreement between defendants and plaintiff as to payment of godown rents. At another place, at page No.5 of his cross examination, DW.1 stated there is an agreement as to payment of rents, if plaintiff causes any damage or loss to F.C.I properties. It is also there in some of the documents of defendants.
30 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
34. At page No.4 of plaint, plaintiff referred about a court decree as per which payment shall be made to owner of godown for delay in dehiring the godown. But the plaintiff failed to mention the case number of said decree. He also did not filed any documents in this regard. PW.1 denied that the defendant corporation paid wages to the workers as per orders of labour department. Though PW.1 deneid the same this contention is proved by vide Ex.B18 and Ex.B19 documents. These documents clearly established that plaintiff failed to pay the wages to the labour in time.
Consequently, the Enforcement Officer addressed a letter to second defendant to comply the provisions of E.P.F and M.P Act, i.e., Ex.B17.
Consequently, as per Ex.B19 defendants remitted an amount of
Rs.2,70,434/- towards employees provident fund out of security deposit which infact payable by plaintiff. As per Ex.B20 and B21 also the defendants paid Rs.55,200/- for demurrage charges for the delay caused in vacating the godowns due to non cooperation of the plaintiff labour.
Plaintiff has to suffer for negligence in execution of work. Ex.B26 is communication between both defendants hence its copy not marked to the plaintiff. For all these reasons the defendants terminated the contract of the plaintiff and informed the same to the plaintiff vide Ex.B24
dt:25.11.2004. Therefore due to these reasons the defendants forfeited
the security deposit.
35. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants pressured 31 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 him to keep old labourers in carrying work done. But there is no proof adduced by the plaintiff in this regard. Plaintiff never addressed this problem in writing to the defendants or to any other forum and there is no evidence in this aspect.
36. Ex.A20 to Ex.A23 are proceedings before D.L.S.A Karimnagar.
During cross examination PW.1 admitted that being illiterate he does not know contents of said documents. But as per those documents, plaintiff was given exemption for payment of court fee and he was also given free legal-aid. But the plaintiff did not take services of legal aid counsel to file this suit. These documents did not established the case of plaintiff in any angle. On Ex.A.20 no adverse orders are passed against the defendants.
37. Ex.A1 is prepared by a clerk in F.C.I godown Nagunur. It did not contain round seal of plaintiff sangam. The plaint did not disclose who scribed the ExA1. However, Ex.A1 also did not established the case of plaintiff and nothing against the defendants.
38. Ex.A12 is only to settle the dispute with the Representatives of hamalis to convince the labour to work. Defendants are not party to
Ex.A12. Plaintiff also did not referred any issue he has with the defendants in Ex.A12. Plaintiff also did not filed complete order of Hon’ble High Court relates to Ex.A14. Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A14 also does not established the case of plaintiff showing the due amount from the defendants. Ex.A6 is in respect of dispute between K.Raghavulu, President of Hamali Sangam and 32 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 the plaintiff and it is not related to the defendants. Similarly, Ex.A11 is also inrespect of problems created by said Raghavulu and work was stopped which caused loss to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- but it is not concerned with the defendants. Ex.A6 to A8 are notices issued to the plaintiff to attend for enquiry and these documents also not concerned with the defendants. Ex.A9 is also forwarding letter of representation of plaintiff. But the representation date:27-1-2004 which was referred in
Ex.A9 is not filed before this court therefore, the contents of said representation are not known. Ex.A10 is the representation of the plaintiff to release bills for the work done at Rs.7,00,000/-. It is not conclusive document and there are no details of period of work, number of labour engaged etc.,. PW.1 further admitted that Ex.A26 and Ex.A27 are not relates to present case. Ex.A24 to A27 also does not establish the case of plaintiff made entitle him to recover suit claim. PW.2 friend of PW.1 for last 40 years. But the plaint or chief affidavit of PW.1 failed to show that PW.2 scribed any of documents filed by the plaintiff before the court.
39. Plaintiff also referred one Anamaneni Madhava Rao, contractor who is also one of the cause for non cooperation of labour. PW.1 admitted that said Madhava Rao is not labour leader but he do not know he is
President of Rice Millers Association and he is no way concerned in respect of dispute between plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff no where made any allegations against said Madhavar Rao in any letters addressed to various 33 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 officials.
40. I also gone through written arguments of plaintiff filed on 12- 11-2019 and 19-3-2021. But there are no merits. It is well settled law that to get relief, plaintiff shall establish his case basing on his own evidence and he shall not depend upon weakness in defendants’ case. If really there was no fault or negligence on the part of plaintiff in carrying out work in time, plaintiff ought to respond to the letters written by the defendants. All the points raised in written arguments of plaintiff are nothing but misconception of facts. Therefore in view of evidence of Pw.1 and DW.1 coupled with documents discussed above the defendants have every right to forfeit the security deposit and they have forfeited the same as per terms and conditions of contract. Accordingly this issue is answered.
ISSUE NO.2:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.21,94,973/- from the defendants with costs and interest as prayed for?”
41. During the course of cross examination, PW.1 admitted that he did not filed any document to show that he deposited Rs.14,98,000/- as per
Ex.A18 letter. Plaintiff did not filed any proof to show that he deposited
Rs.10,00,000/- with the defendants. Apart from Ex.A1 plaintiff became due of wages to labour and several times. Under Ex.B1, plaintiff was asked 10 lakhs towards security deposit, but as per Ex.B2, plaintiff deposited 5 Lakhs only. The defendants advised him to pay wages to the labour in time and also to comply provisions of E.P.F and M.T Act. Plaintiff pleaded ignorance 34 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 that he did not paid demurrage charges to Railway department but the documents of the defendants showing that the defendants bear demurrage charges due to fault of plaintiff and his labour. Pw.1 deneid that the defendant corporation paid Rs.12,00,000/- towards demurrage charges and godown charges as per proceedings dated:28-9-2005 which is payable by the plaintiff. Though DW.1 admitted that defendants have not filed any bills issued by Railway as to payment of demurrage charges. Ex.B21 need not thrown aside.
42. PW.1 further denied that the plaintiff deposited only five lakhs towards security deposit but not ten lakhs. In the written statement the defendants also made claim to recover Rs.4,50,262/- but the defendants did not proceed to contest counter claim against plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to adduce proper legal evidence to show that he deposited total
Rs.18,07,193/- with the defendants. PW.1 stated that he filed documents showing payment of Rs.1,86,000/- as per advise of Dy Labour
Commissioner, Karimnagar but no such document is filed. PW.1 further denied that he did not paid such amount and the defendants deducted said amount from the amounts payable to him. Admittedly, as per provisions of
Factories Act, Workmen Compensation Act, E.P.F Act, the plaintiff being
Contractor shall pay wages to the workers. But the documents marked under Exs.B6 to Ex.B16, 20 and 22, clearly shows that plaintiff did not paid wages to the labour regularly nor complied provisions of E.P.F Act. Thereby 35 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 plaintiff violated terms and conditions of contract as such the defendants terminated the same.
43. On the other hand the defendants further contention is that plaintiff obstructed for dehiring godown as such the defendants
Corporation forced to pay godown hire charges. The documents filed by the plaintiff did not establish that the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim from the defendants. Therefore in view of above discussion I hold that plaintiff failed to establish his case that the defendants are due the suit amount to him and it is unnecessary prosecution. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of suit amount. Accordingly issue is answered.
ISSUE No.3:-
In view of finding in above issues and in additional issue it is held that plaintiff cannot sue in his individual capacity and plaintiff sangam also not entitled for recovery of suit amount.
In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day of20th day of April, 2022.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-
ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS FOR THE DEFENDANTS
PW.1 : Mengani Yellaiah. DW1 : Dharmendra Kushram. PW.2 : Swargam Chandramouli.
36 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
EXHIBITS MARKED
Ex.A1Original payment receipt/Acquittance Register. Ex.A2Original Appointment of H & T contract of F.C.I, Karimnagar
Dt:20-8-2003.
Ex.A3Original Award of H & T contract of F.C.I Karimnagar hired godwon, dt:5-9-2003. Ex.A4Certificate issued by District Labour Commissioner, Karimnagar
Dt:8-12-2003.
Ex.A5Certificate issued by the District Labour Commissioner Karimnagar dated:27-12-2003 Ex.A6Original Notice of R.D.O Karimnagar dated:3-1-2004 Ex.A7Original Notice of R.D.O Karimnagar dated:20-2-2004. Ex.A8Original notice of R.D.O Karimnagar dated:12-3-2004. Ex.A9Original Forwarding letter to S.P., Karimnagar dated:10-2-2004. Ex.A10 Original letter issued by Labour Department, Karimnagar Dt:17- 6-2004. Ex.A11 Original application filed by the plaintiff to F.C.I Karimnagar
dt:29-6-2004.
Ex.A12 Original Copy of application filed by the plaintiff to Asst. Commissioner of Labour Karimnagar dt:6.8.2014. Ex.A13 Original letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner and labour
dated:15-9-2004.
Ex.A14 Original Copy of High Court Order In W.P.M.P.No.360/04 in W.P.No.259/2004. Ex.A15 Original copy of the resolution passed by the society members and executed their members dated:7-3-2010. Ex.A16 Office copy of legal notice dated:5-11-2012. Ex.A17 Postal receipt of legal notice dt:11.12.2012. Ex.A18 Original request letter dt:5.3.2007 Ex.A19 Original certificate of performance and period of turnover quantity of handling and transport of plaintiff request letter of pertaining due amount of FCI Karimnagar in the year 2003. Ex.A20 Docket order of the Lok-Adalath Karimnagar Dt:5.7.2013. Ex.A21 Original application copy filed by the plaintiff to D.L.S.A, 37 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
Karimnagar dt:19.8.2013. Ex.A22 Original application copy filed by the plaintiff to D.L.S.A Karimnagar dt:20.8.2013. Ex.A23 Original certificate issued by DLSA Karimnagar dt:25.8.2013 Ex.A24 Certificate of registration issued by the District Co-operative Officer, Registrar of mutually aided co-operative Societies, Karimnagar Dt:28-9-2001. Ex.A25 Letter Dt:28.9.2001 received from District Co-operative Officer, Registrar of mutually aided co-operative Societies, Karimnagar Ex.A26 Certificate issued by Warehouse Manager, Central Warehouse, Karimnagar Dt;18-2-2002. Ex.A27 Certificate issued by Pasidi Agri- Tech Karimnagar Dt:28-9-2004
FOR THE DEFENDANTS.
Ex.B1Corbon copy of appointment of H& T contract dt:23.8.2003. Ex.B2Corbon copy of H & T contract, Dt:29-8-2003. Ex.B3Office copy of Letter dated:29.8.2003 confirmation of Security deposit for issuance of work order. Ex.B4Office copy of letter regarding issuance of work order
Dt:5-9-2003.
Ex.B5Office copy of letter addressed to plaintiff Dt:22-1-2004. Ex.B6Office copy of letter dt:24-2-2004 addressed to District Manager, F.C.I. with regard to payment of wages under ID Act, 1947. Ex.B7Office copy of letter Dt:11-3-2004 addressed to plaintiff. Ex.B8Office copy of letter dt:1-7-2004 addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Labour Karimnagar. Ex.B9Report submitted by Asst. Manager, F.C.I Karimnagar to the District Manager, F.C.I Karimnagar Dt:1-5-2004. Ex.B10Office copy of letter Dt:6-5-2004 addressed to the plaintiff with advise to improve the performance. Ex.B11Office copy of letter Dt:20-5-2004 addressed to the plaintiff with advise to improve the performance. Ex.B12Office copy of etter Dt:26-5-2004 addressed to the plaintiff with advise to improve the performance. Ex.B13Office copy of letter dt:3-6-2004 addressed to plaintiff.
38 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014
Ex.B14Office copy of letter Addressed to the plaintiff dt:7-6-2004. Ex.B15Corbon copy of letter dt:14.6.2004 addressed to the plaintiff. Ex.B16Corbon copy letter dt:15-6-2004 addressed to the plaintiff. Ex.B17Letter addressed to District Manager, F.C.I, Karimnagar
Dt:22.6.2004 regarding non compliance of provisions of EPF &
MP Act, 1952 by the contractor. Ex.B18Office copy of letter addressed to Enforcement Office, Karimnagar Dt:30-6-2004 regarding non compliance of provisions of EPF & MP Act, 1952 by the contractor. Ex.B19Office copy of letter Dt:11.8.2004. Ex.B20Office copy of letter Dt:4-9-2004 addressed to the plaintiff. EX.B21Office copy of letter Dt:15-9-2004. Ex.B22Office copy of letter Dt:20-10-2004 addressed to the plaintiff. Ex.B23Office copy of letter Dt:4.11.2004 termination of H & T contract. Ex.B24Office copy of letter Dt:25-11-2004 addressed to the plaintiff. Ex.B25Letter Dt:7-12-2004 along with acknowledgement given by the plaintiff. Ex.B26Office copy of letter Dt:13-9-2005. Ex.B27Fax message dt:2-12-2005 regarding Security Deposit. Ex.B28Authorization letter Dt:2-4-2019. Ex.B29True copy of Food Corporation of India notification. Ex.B30Authorization given by Area Manager dt:8-4-2019 in favour of defendants.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-
ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR.
39 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014 40 Of 38 O.S.No. 36 of 2014