Labourers’ affidavits can sustain contractor blacklisting for commission deductions from wages.

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, held a contract to supply and maintain 16 workers at an electric sub-station.

The Corporation initially blacklisted the firm for two years without notice; the High Court set that order aside for breach of natural justice, while granting liberty to pass a fresh order after notice and hearing.

Following a show-cause notice and the petitioner’s reply, the Corporation again debarred the firm from future tenders for two years.

The petitioner challenged that order, disputing the findings and the basis for relying on workers’ affidavits alleging that it collected commission from them.

1. Whether the Corporation’s order debarring the petitioner for two years was sustainable on the grounds recorded, particularly the finding that the petitioner collected commission from its workers.

2. Whether the Corporation could rely on the workers’ affidavits without conducting a separate inquiry into the commission allegation.

3. Whether the principle in M/s Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr. required the impugned debarment to be set aside.

Blacklisting or debarment must follow notice and an opportunity of hearing; the Court had earlier set aside the petitioner’s first blacklisting order on that basis and permitted a fresh decision after due process.

In assessing the fresh order, the Court treated the contractual requirement that wages, after specified deductions, be deposited in workers’ bank accounts as material to the alleged misconduct.

It also held that, in the circumstances, the Corporation could rely on workers’ affidavits where no animosity was alleged, and distinguished M/s Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr., where the proposed blacklisting concerned a mere breach of contract for which the contract provided a remedy.

The Court found that the impugned order followed a show-cause notice and consideration of the petitioner’s reply.

The affidavits of all 15 workers supported the finding that the petitioner charged them ₹1,000 as commission, and the petitioner did not allege that the workers were motivated by animosity.

The petitioner also acknowledged making wage payments partly in cash and partly through bank deposits, contrary to the agreement’s requirement for payment into workers’ bank accounts.

The Court considered the commission allegation serious and sufficient to sustain debarment, and therefore did not examine the other grounds.

It rejected the challenge to the absence of a separate inquiry, finding the affidavits sufficient in the circumstances, and distinguished Techno Prints because this case involved the serious commission allegation, not merely a contractual breach.

It dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending application.