The main legal point established in the judgment is that associations lacking privity of contract with an employer should seek remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act and Contract Labour Act, and any alleged breach of contract should be addressed through civil law remedies.

1. The Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemens Corporation Ltd. (for short TEXCO) represented by its General Manager is the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.1913 of 2010. They have come forward to challenge an order of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (for short BSNL), second respondent, dated 30.11.2009. By the said order, the BSNL cancelled the Advance Work Order given in favour of the TEXCO. The reason given by them was that there were two writ petitions pending before this court on the subject matter and that in W.P.(MD)No.5266 of 2009, there has been an interim order against the BSNL. After cancelling the advance work order, the bank guarantee and the agreement submitted by them were returned to the writ petitioner. Since the impugned order referred to two other writ petition, i.e. W.P.(MD)Nos.10233 of 2008 and 5266 of 2009, they were also directed to be listed along with this writ petition. Further since W.P.(MD)No.4060 of 2010 also raised similar issue it was also tagged along with this writ petition.

.2. In W.P.(MD)No.10233 of 2008, the petitioner is the Trichy Region Ex-servicemen and Family Welfare Association. They have filed the writ petition, seeking to challenge the order, dated 20.10.2008 issued by the BSNL, Trichy. In that order, the BSNL informed the TEXCO rearranging the number of security guards to be supplied by TEXCO. It was informed to TEXCO that initially for the IMPCS towers, total security guards were 335. But their Corporate Office had informed that security guards should be posted only for major vital installations and sensitive store yard and other offices. Therefore, the offices at Trichy had to reduce the number of security guards posted for certain exchanges and offices. The list of security guards to be reduced or posted was also enclosed along with the impugned order. Therefore, the said Association comprising of the persons who were supplied as security guards by TEXCO apprehending that reduction of security guards supplied by TEXCO will result in their members being sent out of employment, had filed the writ petition. They also apprehended that after reducing almost 62 members of their association, the BSNL may go for outsourcing by private agencies at reduced cost which cannot be permitted.

.3. When the matter came up on 211. 2008, notice was taken by the counsel for the BSNL. He also undertook that status quo as on 211. 2008 will continue. On notice from this court, on behalf of the Director General Resettlement, the Government of India, a counter affidavit, dated 3. 2009 was filed. In that counter affidavit, the Directorate General Resettlement, New Delhi in paragraph 6 had averred as follows:

.“6. I state and submit that the petitioner is indirectly impugning the policy decision of the Government of India expressed through the said instructions. The policy has got a social objective to fulfill obviously as contemplated under Chapter IV of the Constitution of India namely to give equal opportunity in employment. There is no arbitrariness in the said policy. I am advised to state this writ petition impugning the policy decision of the Respondents 1 and 2 is not maintainable. There is no right vested on the petitioner to continue their employment beyond the period stipulated under the sponsorship of the 3rd respondent. In case the prayer of the petitioner is granted it would perpetuate the employment of the petitioner Association members forever without any time or other restrictions as imposed by the said instructions. It would make them as permanent employees in the guise of continuance of service. It is against the public policy. Further it would disable the employer namely the 5th respondent a public organization from reducing the strength of the security guards to its bare necessities and minimum requirement and to avoid squandering and wastage of public fund. Further, I am advised to state that the petitioner Association itself not having been empanelled as sponsoring agency independently it is