The judgment emphasizes the significance of the employer-employee relationship and control and supervision in the context of contractual workers appointed by a contractor.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Abdul Moin, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

2. The petitioners admittedly have all been appointed by the private service provider. They contend that despite the contract having been entered into between the State and the service provider i.e. respondent no.4, the service provider is not giving the pay as has been specified in the said contract and hence the petition.

3. Upon a specific plea being put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the present petition is maintainable as it is the service provider who is not adhering to the contract entered into between the State and the service provider and admittedly the petitioners are the employees of the service provider and no writ would be maintainable against the service provider, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights and others vs. Union of India and others, (1982) AIR SC 1473 to contend that in similar circumstances the Apex? Court has entertained the petition.

4. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rekha Singh vs. Union of India, (2018) 6 ADJ 37 (DB) as well as on the judgment of Single Judge in the case of Smt. Karma Devi vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 7 ADJ 62.

5. Placing reliance on another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railways and others vs. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association and another, (2016) 3 SCC 582, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in all these matters the employees of the service provider had approached the Court and the Court had entertained the petition and had granted them reliefs prayed for and hence the present petition would be maintainable.

6. This Court has perused the judgment in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra). The said case was a public interest litigation filed before the Apex Court to ensure the observance of the provisions of various labour laws in relation to workmen employed in the construction work of various projects connected with the Asian Games. Instant petition is not a public interest litigation and hence the aforesaid judgment by which the public interest litigation had been entertained by the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India would not be applicable in the present facts of the case.

7. So far as the Division Bench judgment in the case of Rekha Singh (supra) is concerned, the same was a matter in which Assistant Director of Institute of Correspondence Course and Continuing Education of Allahabad University (hereinafter referred to as ICC & CE) had filed a petition commanding the University to pay arrears of salary to her on the post of Assistant Director and to continue to pay the same on monthly basis. This Court after considering the various provisions of the Constitution of India including "Begar" held that since ICC & CE is a Self-Financing Institute of the University, entertained the matter and directed the University to make immediate arrangement for payment of salary and emoluments to the petitioner for the period for which the petitioner was claiming the same. Again, the petitioners, as already indicated above, are the employees of the service provider and the service provider has got nothing to do with the working of the State Government and consequently the said judgment would also not come to the rescue of the petitioners.

8. As regards the judgment in the case of Smt. Karmakar Devi (supra), the said case was a matter in which a Class IV employee working as Sweeper in Junior School had approached for payment of regular pay scale as well as for her regularization. As already indicated above the petitioners are not employees of the State Government rather they are the employees of the service provider a