Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 827
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Ranbir - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 4379 of 2021
Decided On : 26-02-2021
Mr. Dalbir Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant, Mr. Minderjeet Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the Respondent.
The employment dispute of the petitioner, who was engaged through service/manpower providers, should be addressed through appropriate remedies before the competent forum.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Employment Dispute - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to set aside the oral order relieving the petitioner from his position as a Mali and replacing him with another individual. The court found that the petitioner was not an employee of the State or the respondents but was employed by the service/manpower providers. The court also held that the petitioner's dispute with the service/manpower providers should be addressed through appropriate remedies before the competent forum.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, employed as a Mali through service/manpower providers, sought to set aside the oral order relieving him from his position and replacing him with another individual.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not an employee of the State or the respondents but was employed by the service/manpower providers. The court dismissed the writ petition and allowed the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies against the service/manpower providers.
Issues: The issues involved the employment status of the petitioner, the authority responsible for his employment, and the appropriate forum for addressing his dispute with the service/manpower providers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's dispute with the service/manpower providers should be addressed through appropriate remedies before the competent forum.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and allowed the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies against the service/manpower providers.
ORDER
Alka Sarin, J. - Heard through video conferencing.
2. The present civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed inter-alia for issuance of a writ in the nature certiorari to set aside the impugned oral order dated 09.09.2020 regarding relieving of the petitioner by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and thereafter replacing him with private respondent No.6 on the post of Mali.
3. The brief facts, relevant to the present Us, are that the State Government has a policy for outsourcing of services/activities. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are service/manpower providers. Since 01.01.2016 the petitioner is working as a Mali with respondent No.3 through respondent No.4 (the service/manpower provider). As per the averments in the writ petition, during this period the petitioner was asked to do other jobs by respondent No.3 like waterman, tube-well operator, night guard, support staff during examinations, etc. According to the petitioner, the respondentNo.4 (the service/manpower provider) did not pay/deposit the EPF of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons despite demand having been made. In 2017 respondent No.3 changed the service/manpower provider and gave the contract to respondent No.5 who also did not pay/deposit the EPF of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons despite demand having been made. In 2020 respondent No.3 again changed the service/manpower provider and gave the contract to respondent No.4. It is averred that without any show cause notice the petitioner has been asked not to come for duty to respondent No.3 and instead respondent No.6 has been appointed after the petitioner.
4. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to continue since he was appointed as per proper channel and till a regular appointment is made, he has a prior right to the job, that the petitioner has been relieved only because he raised demands for EPF, that the actual employer of the petitioner was respondent No.3 who was assigning him works as thought fit, that replacing a contractual employee with another contractual employee is against the decision by the Supreme Court in 'Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.' (2007 (13) SCC 292).
5. Since an advance copy of the writ petition was supplied to the office of Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Minderjeet Yadav, DAG has put in appearance for respondent Nos.1 to 3. He has submitted that the petitioner is not an employee of the State or respondent No.3 but was an employee of respondent No.4 or respondent No.5 (the service/manpower providers) at different points in time. According to the State counsel, it is not the State Government or respondent No.3 which has removed the petitioner from service but it is the service/manpower provider who has removed him and that there is no binding contract between the petitioner and respondent No.3.He has placed reliance upon the decisions by this Court in 'Sharanbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Ors.' (LPA-1910-2018 decided on 10.12.2018); 'Zamir vs. State of Haryana & Ors.' (CWP-14135-2015 decided on 20.02.2020); 'Vikash vs. The State of Haryana & Ors.' (CWP-19762-2018 decided on 11.12.2019); and 'Sunil vs. The State of Haryana & Ors.' (CWP-3536-2019 decided on 26.11.2020).
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel. The petitioner was never given an appointment by respondent Nos.l to 3. There is no appointment letter issued by respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the record. Rather, the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.4 or respondent No.5 (the service/manpower providers) during different years. This is also patent from the fact that demands for EPF were made by him to respondent No.4 or respondent No.5 (the service/manpower providers) and not to respondent No.3 which would also imply that his salary was paid by respondent No.4 or respondent No.5 (the service/manpower providers). There is no binding contract between the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3. Further, the decision i
