JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The appellants are the sponsored candidates, appointed in a specific project of the respondent no. 1/the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited. They are aggrieved with the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Bench, dated May 19, 2025 in WPA No. 8847 of 2009 and file this appeal with the prayer to set aside the said judgment and for absorption and regularization of their service, with the respondent no. 1.

2. The appellants intend to derive their right of absorption from a tripartite agreement dated July 02, 2008, entered into between the respondent no. 1 and the trade unions. According to the appellants, the said tripartite memorandum dated July 02, 2008 is the recognized policy decision for regularisation of workers in Unit No. 5 and in Unit No. 6 also, during the future course. It is stated that according to the agreed terms, unanimously entered into by all the stakeholders, the sponsored workers, that is the appellant/writ petitioners would be absorbed and engaged in the operation and maintenance of Unit No. 5 immediately and in Unit No. 6 in due course. It is stated further that by dint of the same, a binding obligation has been created upon the respondent no. 1, to absorb and regularise the appellants.

3. The General Manager, Santhaldih Thermal Power Station, wrote to the District Employment Exchange on December 17, 2004, for sponsoring names of unskilled labourers, to be engaged in the construction site of Unit No. 5. Hence, the names of the appellants/petitioners were sponsored and they have been engaged in the year 2005. The petitioners have been placed under the contractors and this way they were continued being engaged as unskilled labourers with the respondent no. 1.

4. Allegedly, from mid of 2007, the authority started to terminate those labourers, earlier sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Consequently, labour agitation took place. Ultimately, at the intervention of the District Magistrate, the parties have entered into the said Memorandum dated July 02, 2008.

5. In the writ petition as above, the appellant/petitioners have sought for the relief that they may be directed to be absorbed and regularised with the respondent no. 1.

6. The Hon’ble Single Bench has held as follows:-

“28. It is absolutely the discretion of the respondent thermal power plants to seek the requisite number of man power to accomplish individual project irrespectively. The petitioners cannot direct the respondent thermal power plants to utilize the manpower in a specific manner, being nowhere connected with the respondent thermal power plants either in management or in organization. The cessation of their employment, definitely disheartening and unfortunate, should be addressed to the Employment Exchange for contemplating avenues for 'alternative engagement suitably. The petitioner's deployment through contractors does not accrue any legal right violative of the provisions of the Constitution, since the terms and conditions of functioning are restricted to the agreement between the contractors and the respondent thermal power plants with definite clause of expiration at the end of its period of validity which cannot continue till eternity being time bound and project specific.

29. The petitioners were not providing the job of permanent or perennial nature. There were basically hired by the independent contractor and were not essentially performing the work of permanent employees to be considered for regularization or to claim any vested right against retrenchment. The deployment of the petitioners had been restricted to the duration of the contract between the contractor, through whom the petitioners had been engaged and the principal employer, being the respondent thermal power plants. The respondent thermal power plants did not directly employ the petitioners who are therefore debarred from claiming any legal or vested rights against the respondent thermal power plants for violation of constitutional pro