Supreme Court Upholds Labor License Requirement in Tender Process

The Supreme Court upheld the requirement for a valid labor license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, as stated in the tender documents. It found the disqualification of a bidder based on a gap in experience certificate to be reasonable, overturning the High Court's decision. Allegations of mala fide actions were not substantiated, leading the Supreme Court to set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstate the Appellant to fulfill the agreement. The Court emphasized judicial restraint in administrative actions and the need for courts to defer to the expertise of authorities unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, perversity, or mala fide conduct.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the requirement for a labour licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
2. Satisfaction of the three years’ experience requirement.
3. Allegation of mala fide action by the authorities.
4. Jurisdiction and limits of judicial review by the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Requirement for a Labour Licence:
The Tender Call Notice (TCN) issued by the Office of the Superintendent, SCB Medical College and Hospital, required bidders to have a valid labour licence. The High Court interpreted this requirement as not mandating a licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, but rather under the Odisha Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. However, the Supreme Court found that the authority's interpretation of its own tender documents, which required a licence under the Contract Labour Act, was correct. The Court emphasized that judicial review should not second-guess the authority's interpretation unless it is arbitrary, perverse, or mala fide.

2. Satisfaction of the Three Years’ Experience Requirement:
The TCN required bidders to have a minimum of three years’ experience in diet preparation and supply. The High Court accepted the experience certificate provided by Respondent No.1, which had a gap period, as sufficient. However, the Supreme Court held that the authority's decision to disqualify Respondent No.1 based on the gap in the experience certificate was reasonable and should not have been interfered with by the High Court.

3. Allegation of Mala Fide Action:
Respondent No.1 alleged that the authorities acted with mala fide intentions by disqualifying its bid to favor another bidder. The High Court found the actions of the authorities to be mala fide and quashed the work order granted to the Appellant. The Supreme Court, however, found that the plea of mala fide was not substantiated by evidence and that the High Court's characterization of the authority's actions as mala fide was questionable.

4. Jurisdiction and Limits of Judicial Review:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles of judicial restraint in administrative actions, emphasizing that courts should not substitute their own decisions for those of the authorities. The Court referred to established precedents, including Tata Cellular v. Union of India and Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., which underscore the need for courts to defer to the expertise and interpretation of the tendering authority unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, perversity, or mala fide.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, reinstating the Appellant to complete performance under the agreement dated 27.11.2020. The Court held that the High Court overstepped its bounds of judicial review by second-guessing the authority's interpretation of the TCN and by characterizing the authority's actions as mala fide without sufficient evidence. The appeals were allowed, and the Appellant was directed to be reinstated within one week from the date of the judgment.

---