Lokesh Garments Pvt. Ltd. vs M.T.N.L.
2002 Latest Caselaw 54 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

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 our of the contract placed on it.

2. Before coming to the submissions made by senior counsel for the petitioner, it may be pertinent to not 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 protected 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 Articles 14 and is an infringement of petitioner's right under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India.

4. I am not persuaded to accept these submissions. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause as well a conciliation clause in the contract, appearing at page 26 of the paper book. From the letter appearing at page 49 of the paper book, it appears that the time for completion of stitching of the uniform was 45 days. Mr. Dutta further submits that respondent has been in breach of its obligation in not supplying the cloth for stitching. He submits that the reference of 45 days in the letter, appearing at page 49 of the paper book, was only with respect to a part of the contract.

5. Mr. Dinesh Agnani, learned counsel for the respondent/MTNL, who appears on receiving advance copy of the petition, submits that there is an arbitration agreement. According to him, petitioner is in default and only part of the contract has been executed while for the balance part, MTNL has decided to permit the employees to have the clothes stitched themselves and not to have the same performed through the petitioner. He submits that petitioner would be free to invoke its remedies by arbitration in the civil forum with regard its claim for damages and breach of contract, if any. There is merit in this submission.

The petitioner assails the decisions and the agreement with employees union to permit the employees to have clothes stitched themselves rather than have the same under the agreement with the petitioner is actuated by the CBI enquiry. The respondent on the other hand claim non-performance, delay and breach by the petitioner. Given the nature of controversy and disputed facts, as noted above, this is not a fit case to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially with the existence of an admitted conciliation mechanism and arbitration agreement.

6. The writ petition is dismissed in liming.