M/s Sham Singh & Company vs Union of India and others

The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged the following three e-NITs:-

The sole ground of challenge to the above-mentioned NITs is that issuance of NITs on a lump-sum basis instead of manpower outsourcing basis is neither legally feasible nor workable, inasmuch as the same has the effect of violating and contravening the labour laws, including the Minimum Wages Act, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the Equal Remuneration Act, the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, and the Employees' State Insurance Act (ESI).

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned NITs issued on a lump-sum basis are inherently illegal and unworkable, violating the mandate of various beneficial labour statutes, such as the Minimum Wages Act, the Payment of Wages Act, and the Payment of Bonus Act. He submitted that historically, Government Departments issued manpower tenders only after incorporating detailed calculations for statutory wages, EPF, ESI, and bonus, ensuring full legal compliance. He further argued that the adoption of a lump-sum model is highly detrimental to the statutory rights of the engaged labourers as well as the legitimate interests of service providers like the petitioner. Such a mechanism confers unguided discretion upon contractors, resulting in the eventual exploitation of manpower.

Per contra, Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the petitioner previously filed four writ petitions raising identical issues concerning the Minimum Wages Act, all of which were subsequently withdrawn. The petitioner has no genuine interest other than stalling the legitimate tender process, having generated zero business over the last five years, and is being set up as a front by interested third parties. Furthermore, Clause 32 of the General Instructions to Bidders and Clause 29 of the Special (Commercial) Conditions of Contract specifically mandate full compliance with applicable labour laws. As such, the present writ petition is completely misconceived and liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. Mr. Gupta, has further submitted that, insofar as the tender pertaining to Rajouri is concerned, the same is still under process and the petitioner has not participated therein, whereas the bids in respect of the other two tenders are being submitted.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

The record depicts that the petitioner had earlier filed four writ petitions, bearing WP(C) Nos. 790/2025, 807/2025, 808/2025 and 809/2025, whereby the NITs floated by the respondent-BSNL in the year 2025 were assailed. However, all these writ petitions were subsequently withdrawn in terms of order dated 12.03.2026.

In the earlier petitions also, as the petitioner had claimed that the NITs floated by the petitioner were contrary to the orders issued under the Minimum Wages Act, but all these writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has complained that the NITs floated by the respondent-BSNL are on lump-sum basis, thereby defeating the spirit of the labour laws. Precisely, the petitioner is raising a grievance regarding the alleged non-compliance of the labour laws, and it is not the case of the petitioner that the conditions of the tender have been so tailor-made as to benefit the bidders of their choice. In this context, it would be appropriate to take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies, reported as (2009) 6 SCC 171, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the terms of an invitation to tender ordinarily cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny, as such terms are in the realm of contract. However, limited judicial review may be available where it is established that the terms of the invitation to tender, have been tailor-made to suit the convenience of a particular person with a view to eliminate others from participating in the bidding process. The bidders are entitled to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids in a transparent manner, free from any hidden agenda.

The aforesaid judgment, in considered view of this court, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the petitioner has assailed the conditions of the tender without alleging or demonstrating that such conditions have been tailor-made to favour any particular bidder or to exclude other eligible bidders from the bidding process. The grievance raised by the petitioner essentially pertains to the alleged violation or non-compliance of the labour laws by the respondent-BSNL. Such a grievance, by itself, does not furnish a ground for judicial interference with the terms and conditions of the NIT, particularly when there is no allegation of arbitrariness, favoritism, mala fide or any hidden agenda in prescribing the tender conditions, more particularly when the terms and conditions of the contract mandate the compliance of labour laws.

The relevant clauses of the General Instructions to Bidders to Section 4 Part A are extracted as under :-

Further clauses 29 and 30 of Section-V (Part-B) of the Special (Commercial) Conditions of Contract are extracted as under:-

In terms of the clauses referred to hereinabove, the bidder is under an obligation to comply with all applicable labour laws, including the Minimum Wages Act, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the Equal Remuneration Act, the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, and the Employees' State Insurance Act (ESI), as well as all other laws relating thereto.

It is a settled proposition of law that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is extremely circumscribed. This Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot sit as an appellate authority to substitute its own wisdom for that of the tendering authority merely because an alternative term or condition appears to be more prudent or desirable. Accordingly, the challenge to the NITs on the ground urged by the petitioner cannot be sustained.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, deserves to be dismissed. The same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CM(s), if any.