LOKESH GARMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MTNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking quashing of an alleged agreement dated 9/12/2001 between the respondent and its employees union to be declared ultra vires, void, illegal and without jurisdiction. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to honour its commitments arising out of the contract placed on it.

(2.) Before coming to the submissions made by senior counsel for the petitioner, it may be pertinent to note that respondent/MTNL had issued a notice. inviting tenders (NIT), which appears at page 16 of the paper book, on 7/6/2001. Tenders were invited from Indian Companies owning readymade garment factory, having an annual turn over of Rs.10 crores or above for stitching of various items of uniform for the employees of MTNL. These included winter suiting, coats, pants, ladies blazers, trousers, shirts and ladies suit etc.' The quantities varied from 62,000 to 1,65,408.

(3.) Petitioner claims to have bid for the contract successfully. 'Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent on account of its own internal problems arising out of a scandal in the purchase of clothes' supplied to the petitioner for execution of the contract has resorted to the malafide action of by entering into an agreement with its Union despite the contract with the petitioner. He submits that a CBI enquiry is on and the whole action of the respondent is actuated to protect its employees from the said enquiry proceedings. Learned counsel-has drawn my attention to a letter appearing at page 49A of. the paper book, where reference has been made to the agreement entered into by MTNL with Union and a request is made to return all the stitched uniforms in separate bags. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case, which would fall in the category of malafide and arbitrary change in policy decision to deprive the petitioner of its legitimate rights. He submits that this Court should entertain this petition under Article 226 of India as it violates Article 14 and is an infringement of petitioner's right under, Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India.