Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Ajmal Husain S/o Shri Khushi Mohammad - Appellant
versus
The Union Of India - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4938/2019
Decided on : 03-03-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Interim Orders - The court issued interim orders in multiple writ petitions, directing that the respondents must continue engaging the petitioners until additional workmen are required through an outsourcing agency. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Employment Law - The court recognized the retention of some employees by the respondent-placement agency as per the interim orders, while acknowledging that others have moved on. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to ensure their continued employment through interim orders issued by the court, which were subsequently made absolute.
Findings of Court:
The interim orders were confirmed, and the writ petitions were disposed of.
Issues: The main issue was the continuation of employment for the petitioners as per the interim orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining employment for the petitioners until additional workmen were engaged, affirming the interim orders.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of.
ORDER :
DINESH MEHTA, J.
1. While issuing notice, on 02.04.2019 (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.4883/2019, 4889/2019 & 4890/2019) and on 03.04.2019 (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.4946/2019 &4938/2019), following interim orders were passed by the Court:-
“In the meanwhile, the respondents, in case, they have required from outsourcing agency to engage/provide persons for the positions the petitioners are working, shall continue with the petitioners and in case, any additional workmen are required, the same may be engaged through the outsourcing agency.”
2. Mr. Sodha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the interim orders, some of the employees have been retained by the respondent-placement agency and some of them have moved ahead in life and left the job.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute this position and the fact that some of the petitioners have been engaged by them.
4. While making the interim orders dated 02.04.2019 and 03.04.2019 passed in above writ petitions absolute, the present writ petitions stand disposed of.
5. Stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
The court affirmed interim orders ensuring the continued employment of petitioners until additional workmen were engaged through an outsourcing agency.
The court established that guidelines for outsourcing prohibit the removal of currently engaged employees, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice.
The petitioner lacked standing to challenge the lawful termination of a temporary work order.
Contractual employees granted interim protection against termination and fresh recruitment without preference, mirroring High Court order for similarly placed, pending final adjudication.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition by an outsourced employee against a private entity is not maintainable.
The principle of 'No Work, No Pay' applies only when an employee is out of service; it is inapplicable when the employee is willing to work but not utilized by the employer.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
