R.S.A. No. 2872 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) R.S.A. No. 2872 of 2008 Date of decision: September 8, 2008 M/s Kurukshetra Traders and another .. Appellants. v. Food Corporation of India and others .. Respondents (2) R.S.A. No. 2873 of 2008 M/s Kurukshetra Traders and another .. Appellants. v. Food Corporation of India and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 2872 and 2873 of 2008, as the same arise out of a common judgment dated 14.10.2003, passed by District Judge, Kurukshetra. The facts have been extracted from R.S.A. No. 2872 of 2008. The appellants-defendants are in appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,68,531/- along with interest from the appellants on account of work done by the respondent at the risk and cost of the appellants. The respondent invited tenders for appointment of contractors for handling and transport work at Kurukshetra on 23.3.1987. The appellants participated in the tendering process and being the lowest, their tender was accepted. The appellants though initially carried out the work, but later on failed to provide necessary service to the respondent as per the R.S.A. No. 2872 of 2008 [2] terms of the contract w.e.f. 21.9.1988. As a result thereof, the respondent did not have any choice but to invite fresh tenders for appointment of ad hoc conctractors for handling and transport work at the Food Corporation of India Godown, Kurukshetra at the risk and cost of the appellants. The appellants filed a suit for injunction in the Civil Court at Kurukshetra, where interim injunction was granted. However, the same was vacated in appeal by the respondent. The respondent awarded the contract to another contractor for the remaining period. As a result thereof, the respondent incurred additional cost of Rs. 6,97,412/-. After adjusting certain pending claims of the appellants, an amount of Rs. 6,68,531/- was found to be recoverable from the appellants along with interest. It is for recovery of this amount that the suit was filed. The appellants also filed counter claim in the suit. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as there was subsequent change in the circumstances on account of an order passed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the labour already working with the respondent, it became impossible for the appellants to continue working on the terms and conditions initially agreed upon, as they had to pay much more amount to the labour employed through the respondent than the rate at which they had engaged the labour, which made the contract totally unviable. However, the contention is totally misconceived. The learned Court below considered this aspect of the matter and held that a perusal of telegram (Ex. P.1) vide which the appellants accepted the terms of the contract shows that there was a specific condition incorporated therein that the contract shall be subject to the decision of the Court in case of abolition of the contract system of the labour. In this view of the matter, the appellants were bound by any order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the labour working with the respondent, notwithstanding that the appellants were not party therein. The breach of the contract by the appellants is otherwise not disputed. Even otherwise, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that they had to pay much more to the labour employed through the respondent also could not be proved in evidence led by them. The counter claim filed by the appellants was rejected for the R.S.A. No. 2872 of 2008 [3] reason that they had not been able to lead any evidence to prove their claim as against the evidence led by the respondent. A perusal of the judgments of the Courts below shows that the findings recorded are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 08, 2008 mk