M/S. Blue Caps Total Security Services Through Prop. Mr. Satyendra Singh vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's bid of Rs. 8,57,924/- was rightly rejected as it violated Clause 17 of the tender document, which mandated rejection of bids exceeding Rs. 7,50,000/- for monthly wages. The Court found that the petitioner's calculation of minimum wages, which included GST, was incorrect. GST is not part of the wages payable to an employee by an employer. The minimum wages for the specified number of unskilled and skilled employees, as per the State Government's circular, amounted to Rs. 6,35,320/-. Respondent No. 3's bid of Rs. 7,42,372/- was above this minimum calculated wage and below the Rs. 7,50,000/- cap. Therefore, the tender was rightly awarded to respondent No. 3. The petition was found to be devoid of merit.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Blue Caps Total Security Services, challenged the allotment of a tender for security and housekeeping services by the Commandant, 15th Battalion, Special Armed Forces, Indore (respondent No. 2) to respondent No. 3. The tender was initially floated on 02.08.2024 and amended by a corrigendum on 12.08.2024. The petitioner contended that respondent No. 3's bid was below the minimum wages notified by the government and thus liable for rejection, citing government circulars. The respondents argued that the tender document did not restrict bids below minimum wages and that respondent No. 3's bid of Rs. 7,42,000/- was below the prescribed cap of Rs. 7,50,000/- for monthly wages, ensuring compliance with labour laws.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allotment of the tender in favour of respondent No. 3 is illegal on the ground that its bid was below the minimum wages notified by the government, thereby violating government circulars regarding minimum wage compliance? (Question of law and fact, concerning tender conditions and labour laws). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that any bid quoting below the minimum wages should be treated as a nil price quotation and rejected. They relied on circulars from the Government of India and the State Government mandating rejection of bids below minimum wages. The petitioner claimed their bid was equal to minimum wages and they were the most eligible bidder, hence the tender was illegally awarded to respondent No. 3. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the tender document did not impose a restriction on bids below minimum wages. They highlighted Clause 17 of the tender conditions, which stipulated a maximum monthly wage of Rs. 7,50,000/-, and stated that respondent No. 3's bid of Rs. 7,42,000/- was below this cap and thus rightly accepted. They asserted that there was no non-compliance with labour laws or tender conditions.