A.M. Bhattacharjee, C.J.@mdashIn order to make available proper services to the air passengers at the Calcutta Airport, a new domestic
Terminal Building is being constructed by the Airports Authority wherein the Authority seeks to provide for a Restaurant and two Snack Bar
Counters. The Authority has accordingly issued a notice inviting tender for operating the Restaurant and the Snack Bars at the said new Domestic
Terminal Complex for a period of ten years. The tender notice made it expressly clear that only Five Star Hoteliers were eligible to participate in
the said tender. Pursuant to the said notice inviting tender, five star Hoteliers have submitted their tenders after complying with the requisites there-
for and they are (1) Hotel Hindusthan International, (2) Park Hotel, (3) Oberoi Grand; (4) Taj Bengal and (5) Hotel Airport Ashok of the Indian
Tourism Development Corporation. The Airports Authority has thereafter received a notice from the Area General Manger of the respondent No.
2, Indian Tourism Development Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as I.T.D.C) calling upon the Airport Authority to cancel the aforesaid notice
inviting tender and to give the job of operating the Restaurant and the two Snack Bar Counters to the respondent No. 2. The Airports Authority
not 138 International Airports Authority vs United ITDC Employees CWN 98 having acted according to the said notice, the respondent No. 1
United I.T.O.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Employees Union), being the union of the employees of the respondent No. 2, has moved this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution and has obtained an interim order of injunction restraining the Airports Authority from giving effect and/of
further effect to the Tender Notice and further restraining the Airports Authority from proceeding with the said Tender Notice in any manner
whatsoever till the disposal of the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the Airports Authority has preferred this appeal. The main contention of the writ
petitioner Employees Union in support of the impugned order is that if the Restaurant and the Snack Bars are allowed to be operated by some
other concern other than the I.T.D.C., the existing Restaurant, which is being run by the respondent No. 2, I.T.D. C, would be so much affected
that I.T.D. C may have to close down the same which would seriously affect the services of the employees and their livelihood.
2. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, we are inclined to hold, and this we say with great respect to the learned Judge, that we
cannot maintain the impugned order. It is true, as urged by Mr. Hirak Mitra for the Employees Union and Mr. Jayanta Mitra for the I.T.D. C, that
under the expanding horizon of the modern Labour and Industrial law, it is no longer possible to ignore the workers as they are now being treated
to be as much, if not more, a part of the industrial concern as the owners thereof. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in National. Textile
Workers'' Union AIR 1983 S.C. 75), in view of the Preamble and the Directive Principles of the State Policy of our Constitution and particularly
after the introduction of Article 43A, it would be idle to contend that the workers should have no voice in the determination of the question as to
whether the enterprise can be allowed to take a step which would affect the services and thus, the livelihood, of the workers. After the decision of
the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis (A.I. R 1986 S.C. 180), it must be taken to be the settled law that the right to livelihood is a part of the right to
life and no such right can be affected by the owners of an enterprise which would seriously jeopardise the livelihood of the workers. If the Airports
Authority were going to take some steps affecting the employment of its own workers, the matter might have been entirely different. As at present
advised, we do not see any jural relation between the Airports Authority and the employees of the I.T.D.C. which is running the existing
Restaurant. The mere fact that the present Restaurant at the Airport is being run by the I.T.D.C. International Airports Authority vs United ITDC
Employees 439 or its employees, cannot prevent the Airports Authority to have a fresh deal with a fresh concern in respect of a new Restaurant
elsewhere.
3. It is true that the I.T.D.C. is a Public Authority which has also submitted tender in pursuance of the Tender Notice along with the four other
concerns. On the record at present we do not know whether I.T.D.C. would or would not suitably qualify for the job and would get the contract
The Airports Authority, which is also a Public Concern, has the right to invite tenders from private concerns for the new job. It is no doubt true that
the Airports Authority being a ''State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, its action must be reasonable, right, just and fair. But in
the present context of our policy relating to National Economy, it is neither unreasonable nor unjust or unfair for any Public Authority to negotiate
with a private concern in a fair and reasonable manner. The Authority cannot obviously select one and reject the other tenders arbitrarily and if the
Authority does so it would then be a case warranting our intervention but otherwise, it is not possible for us to direct the Airport Authority to
invariably go for a Public Sector in preference to a private sector. Whether in view of our Constitutional resolve to constitute India into a Socialist
Republic, our State Authority should invariably, or as far as possible, go for Public Sector enterprise is a debatable question of State Policy. Even
with our avowed policy of Socialism, the private sectors have not become disqualified and on more occasions than one, our National Policy is
demonstrating a soft heart towards the Private Sector.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that we can direct the appellant to conclude the deal only with the I.T.D. C, or their
Employees Union.
5. The action also appears to be rather hasty, if not premature. As we have already stated, we do not know as yet who among the tenderers shall
finally qualify. It may be, who knows, the I.T.D.C. itself.
We would accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial judge, but without any order as to costs.
N.K. Batabyal, J.
I agree.