Bench Sr.No:-27 [3575]

**********

***

LISA GILL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order dated 31.10.2025 in W.P.No.29752 of 2025, passed by learned Single Bench, whereby, petition filed by present appellant / writ petitioner, has been dismissed.

2. Admittedly, writ petitioner was engaged for post of Shift Operator through an outsourcing agency, namely Sri Singu Solutions-Respondent No.7. His service was dispensed with by Respondent No.7 pursuant to communication dated 28.03.2025 issued by Executive Engineer, Operation Division, APSPDCL, Kadapa.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that services of Writ Petitioner / Appellant were dispensed with on the premise that he had not completed six months training (COE) in the Elector Sector; instead of period of two (2) years, he had completed only one year six months of training.

4. It is submitted that Writ Court has erroneously dismissed his Writ Petition without taking into consideration the fact that Writ Petitioner was serving the State itself, even though engaged through an outsourcing agency, and that his termination is stigmatic. It is thus, prayed that this appeal be allowed.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3 refutes the arguments as raised while submitting that there is no question of any stigmatic termination. Apart from the fact that there is no relationship of employer and employee between State and petitioner, it is apparent that petitioner did not possess requisite qualifications to work as a Shift Operator. Dismissal of appeal is sought.

6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.

7. It is a matter of record, and not denied, that Writ Petitioner / Appellant was appointed though an outsourcing agency-Respondent No.7. It is a settled position that, in such circumstances, it cannot be held that there is a relationship of employer and employee between Petitioner and State.

8. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola and others, (2019) 13 SCC 82, wherein it has been held as under:

“23. From this judgment in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Case, (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16, it is clear that Test No.1 is not met on the facts of this case as the contractor pays the workmen their wages. Secondly, the principal employer cannot be said to control and supervise the work of the employee merely because he directs the workmen of the contractor “what to do” after the contractor assigns/allots the employee to the principal employer. This is precisely what para 12 of Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Case explains as being supervision and control of the principal employer that is secondary in nature, as such control is exercised only after such workman has been assigned to the principal employer to do a particular work.”

9. Reference can also be made to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Limited vs. Piyush Kant Sharma and others, (2021) 12 SCC 411

10. In a recent case of the Municipal Council, rep. by its Commissioner Nandyal Municipality vs. K. Jayaram, 2025 Supreme (OnLine) (SC) 110973, it has again been reiterated that there is no relationship of employer and employee with the persons engaged through an outsourcing agency. While considering the question of parity of employees engaged through outsourcing agencies with regular employees, it has been held as under:

“9. xxxx Another issue which has been flagged by learned senior counsel for the respondents is that the respondents being in the position they are, and the relief given being the minimum of the time scale of the pay attached to the regular post cannot be termed as giving them something which was not due or something excessive, for ultimately they also have a family to support and they are also perf