Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1828
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Bwssb Outsourced Employees Sangha (Regd) - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 12127 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
Decided On : 18-12-2025
For the Petitioner:Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar., Sr. Advocate for Sri. Chethan A.C., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Vikram Huilgol., Sr. Advocate For Sri.B.S.Shrinivas, Sri. Nitin Ramesh., Advocate, Sri.V.G.Banuprakash., Aag A/w, Sri.B.Ravindranath., Aga, Smt. Nayanatara B.G., Advocate
An association of contract workers cannot challenge a tender without individual worker representation, and adherence to reservation policies is mandatory in outsourcing contracts.
Headnote:(A) Relevant legal principles include the right to fair treatment in employment under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, along with implications of regularization for long-term temporary employees. Key facts: Petitioner is a workers' association representing more than 300 contract workers with over 10 years of service, challenging four tenders issued by the BWSSB for outsourcing essential positions. The court addressed issues of locus standi of the Petitioner and the necessity of adhering to reservation policies when outsourcing labor.
Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed as the court found no requirement for intervention in the tender process because it was conducted properly and in line with applicable laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The issuance of a tender does not equate to replacing temporary workers unless their services are terminated.
Result: Petition dismissed with liberty to approach proper forums for regularization. (Paras 1-15)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claims and background on tenders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on regularization of workers. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding outsourcing compliance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. challenge to the legality of tender process. (Para 7) |
| 5. court's observations on standing of the petitioner. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. court's analysis of the tender process. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 15) |
ORDER :
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
1. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the tender issued by the 3rd respondents bearing IFT No.BWSSB/CH/CAO-S/Est-8/4222/2024-25 dated 4/3/2025 for engaging 575 nos of Data Entry Operator, Driver, Helper and Attender through Manpower agency on Contract Basis to North Zone of BWSSB (Annexure A);
2. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the tender issued by the respondents bearing IFT No.BWSSB/CH/CAO- S/Est-8/4223/2024-25 dated 4/3/2025 for engaging 783 nos of Operator, Electrician, Fitter, Security Guard, Valveman and Sanitary Helper through Manpower agency on Contract Basis to North Zone of BWSSB (Annexure B);
3. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the tender issued by the 3rd respondents bearing IFT No.BWSSB/CH/CAO-S/Est-8/4224/2024-25 dated 4/3/2025 for engaging 643 nos of Data Entry Operator, Driver, Helper and Attender through Manpower agency on Contract Basis to South Zone of BWSSB (Annexure C);
4. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the tender issued by the respondents bearing IFT No.BWSSB/CH/CAO- S/Est-8/4225/2024-25 dated 4/3/2025 (wrongly typed as 4/3/2024) for engaging 856 nos of Operator, Electrician, Fitter, Security Guard, Valveman and Sanitary Helper through Manpower agency on Contract Basis to South Zone of BWSSB (Annexure D); and
5. Pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit to grant in the interests of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner claims to be an Association of more than 300 contract workers of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board (for short hereinafter referred to as “BWSSB”) who have been working with BWSSB for more than 10 years and have acquired the skills suitable for their work. It is claimed that the members of the Petitioner have been working under various contractors for more than 10 years. Though the contractors have changed, the members of the petitioners continue to work for BWSSB. The Petitioner is before this Court, challenging fresh tenders issued by BWSSB in all four numbers for engaging 2857 number of operators, electricians, fitters, security guards, valve men, sanitary helpers, data entry operators, drivers, helpers and attenders through manpower agencies on a contract basis for both the north and south zones of BWSSB. It is in that background that the Petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Prof.Ravivarma Kumar., learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Association submits that;
3.1. The members of the Petitioner have attained permanency of work, having worked for more than ten years with BWSSB. The manner in which they continue to work with BWSSB requires their service to be regularised. It is apprehend on part of the Petitioner that the successful tenderer may replace the members of the Petitioner which would amount to an ad hoc or temporary employee being replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, which he submits cannot be done, such replacement can only be by a regularly selected employee and in this regards he relies upon decision inSecretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 , more particularly para 20, 24 and 25 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
20. The decision in Dharwad Distt. PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1990) 12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] dealt with a scheme framed by the State of Karnataka, though at the instance of the Court. The scheme was e
