IMPORTANT POINT
Contractual engagement does not create a vested right of employment, and the fact of having rendered services for a long time by contractual employees shall not create a vested right of employment.

ORDER :

1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the present bunch of petitions, involving common questions of fact and law, are jointly taken up for final disposal. For the purpose of recording arguments and/or submissions, the lead file is taken as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4586/1999 titled as Harishankar Sharma and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.

2. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present writ petition and to i)issue an appropriate writ, order or direction the petitioners be continued in the services of the respondents from the date of appointments irrespective of their being a deliberate break in service after every six months by the respondents in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India;

ii) declare by appropriate writ or direction that the petitioners are in continuous service since their respective date of appointments since the petitioners have been shown as contractor labour under the Airport Authority.

iii)issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mendamous or any other appropriate writ, order or direction that the petitioners be entitled to get benefit of minimum pay scale of the posts on which they are discharging their duties.

iv)issue writ, order or direction to put the petitioners on the regular pay scales alongwith other consequential benefits of permanent employees from the date of their initial appointment.

v)any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of petitioners.

vi)cost be awarded to the petitioners.”

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were rendering their services with the respondent-Airport Authority of India. The nature of the work rendered was menial yet integral, such as the day to day maintenance of the premises, like cleaning and gardening. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were gainfully employed through a placement agency/contractor, for a substantial period of time. During the said period, the administrative control qua the petitioners work, was within the control of the respondents. Furthermore, as per the version of the petitioners, by and large, a majority of the documents regarding the petitioners administration of work were also counter-signed by the principle employer i.e. respondents. Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioners rendered their services with the respondents for a considerable long period of time as Class-IV employees, a vested right of employment accrued in favour of the petitioners. In support of the arguments advanced, reliance was placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in HSEB vs. Suresh and Ors: AIR 1999 SC 1160, Air India Statutory Corporation and Ors. vs. United Labour Union and Ors.: (1997) 9 SCC 377 and International Airport Authority Employees Union and Ors. vs. International Airports Authority of India and Ors.: AIR 2001 SC 276.

4. While placing reliance upon the above-referred judgments, it was contended that the fundamental duty of the Court is to give shape and offer to the long, regular and sustained work undertaken by the petitioners. The Courts ought to pierce the veil and recognize the employer-employee relationship which exists between the petitioners and the respondents on account of the work so rendered, which often is camouflaged by the labeled contractual engagement. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that after having taken note of the judgments relied upon herein-above, this Court vide order dated 04.05.2000 had granted an ex-parte stay in favour of the petitioners, which was subsequently confirmed, as the application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) for vacation of stay was dismissed on 17.04.2001. Despite the same, the respondents proceeded