The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition by an outsourced employee against a private entity is not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral). - Present petition has been filed seeking direction that the petitioner should not be replaced with another set of employees keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8746 of 2003 titled as 'Hargurpratap Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others', decided on 07.11.2003.

2. The first question, which needs to be decided is, as to whether the present writ petition is maintainable or not.

3. No appointment order appointing the petitioner by the Nagar Panchayat Bhagat Bhai, District Bathinda has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that she is an employee of the said Nagar Panchayat so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has attached a certificate (Annexure P-2), which has been given by the Nagar Panchayat Bhagat Bhai, District Bathinda to show that she is working with the said authorities.

5. A bare perusal of the said order would show that the petitioner is in fact an employee of Shri Ganesh Co-operative L&C Society Ltd. Maur, District Bathinda and is only posted with the Nagar Panchayat Bhagat Bhai, District Bathinda as an outsourced employee. That being so, there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and Nagar Panchayat, against whom the present relief is being sought.

6. The question of maintainability of the writ petition in respect of the claim of outsourced employees, qua the State or its instrumentality where they have been posted, is no longer res Integra and the said question of law has been settled by this Court in a cantena of judgments that there is no master and servant relationship between the State or its instrumentality and outsourced employees and writ petition by an outsourced employee against the State or its instrumentality is not maintainable.

7. Recently, this Court while deciding CWP No.12274 of 2020 titled as 'Kumar Saurabh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others', decided on 30.09.2020, after considering the law on the said aspect, held as under: -

"This Court had an occasion to consider somewhat similar claim of the contractual employees employed through service provider, wherein also claim was raised that contractual employees working through Contractor by way of outsourcing, are to be treated as Government employees. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered this aspect while deciding CWP-18619-2011 titled as 'Nishan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab', along with other connected cases, vide judgment dated 28.02.2013 and decided as under: -

"A perusal of this policy would show that it is applicable to the employees, who were working as daily wagers/work charge/contract basis on permanent posts and were appointed by the State of Punjab after fulfilling eligibility criteria as per the proper procedure. Policy dated 18.3.2011 dealt with regularization of the services of not only contractual employees, but the daily wagers/work charge employees working in different departments of the Government. By this policy dated 17.11.2011, the benefit of regularization of services was extended to the daily wagers/work charge employees and employees working on contact basis in different departments, i.e.

Boards/Corporations/Cooperative Societies/other Societies and other autonomous bodies. A perusal of both the above policies would clearly spell out that the petitioners who are employees of the Service Providers in the Departments of Revenue and Excise and Taxation, Punjab, in pursuance to the contract entered into between their employer and respondent departments. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and respondent-department. In the absence of such a relationship, petitioners cannot claim any right against the respondents. Even the policies of regularization do not contemplate or provide for benefit of regularization of services of the employees who have been deputed by the Service Providers.

XXX X