IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Stay Application No.4810 of 2010 In Writ Petition No. 980 of 2010 (M/S) M/s Doon Security Services, 100/4 Neshvilla Road, Dehradun. ……Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …….Respondents. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents. Dated:-21-06-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Expression of Interest (EOI) dated 31-05-2010 (as contained in annexure 6) and further actions thereon, issued by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. (B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to let the petitioner work till the subsistence of the Agreement dated 30-07-2009 i.e. upto 30-09-2010. (C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to comply with the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and pay to the contractor enhanced minimum wages w.e.f. 01—04-2010 2 along with the Principal’s /Respondents EPF contribution@13.6% on the total wages w.e.f. 1-10-2009. (D) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to enhance the eligibility requirement of the contractors from 10 lacs to Rs. 1.41 crores. (E) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (F) Award costs of this writ petition to the petitioner against the contesting respondents. According to the petitioner, he was engaged in providing security service. The petitioner firm applied for the tender work and on being satisfied, the respondents No. 2 and 3 awarded the tender work to the petitioner for which an agreement was executed on 30-07- 20009 between the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the petitioner. On 19-04-2010, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner that as per Clause 15.5 Section III of Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) and Clause 5.15 of tender agreement, the petitioner was required to make the payment to their employees of minimum wages Act, 1948 as applicable from time to time but it was not being done so that the show cause notice was issued. Instead of filing the objections against the show cause notice, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. Since, no objections were filed by the petitioner against the show cause notice. The respondents have invited fresh tender for the work. The grievance of the petitioner is that time of the contract has not expired it is to be expired on 31st July 2010. This fact is not disputed that there is an arbitration clause. The Clause 11.1 of the Bid documents reads as under:- 3 “In the event of any question, dispute(s) difference arising under this agreement or in connection therewith (except as to matters the decision of which is specifically provided under this agreement), the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator i.e. Chief General Manager Telecom Uttaranchal Dehradun BSNL (hereinafter referred to as said officer) or any person nominated by him.” The petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to invoke arbitration clause. So far as interim relief is concerned for the interim relief under the Arbitration Act, the petitioner may also approach to the principal Civil Court for redressal of his grievance under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is herby dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy available to the petitioner. Stay application stands disposed of accordingly. The certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner by tomorrow on the payment of usual charges. (B.S.Verma, J.) 21-06-2010 MK