Writ jurisdiction is a public law remedy unavailable for private employment disputes, including claims of sham contracts. Disputed questions of fact concerning the employment relationship and nature of service must be adjudicated by the appropriate industrial or labor forum rather than through writ proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Narula, J.

1. The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate him in service, with full back wages and continuity of service. His grievance arises from a letter dated 4th October, 2019, issued by Respondent No. 2, M4 Solutions Pvt. Ltd., by which he was discharged from duties with effect from the close of office hours on that date.

Factual Background

2. The Petitioner states that he applied for employment pursuant to advertisements published on websites and job portals. According to him, he was called for an interview at the headquarters of Respondent No. 1, namely, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India [“ICAI”], at ICAI Bhawan, New Delhi. He asserts that officers of ICAI interviewed and selected him for deployment as a Civil Engineer. However, instead of issuing an appointment directly, ICAI engaged him through intermediary contractors.

3. The Petitioner’s engagement began on 12th July, 2012 through Randstad India Ltd./MAFOI, which issued a fixed-term contract of employment and, by a deputation letter of the same date, placed him with ICAI. Thereafter, the contracting agency changed more than once: from Randstad India Ltd./MAFOI to Crux Management Services Pvt. Ltd., then to G.A. Digital Web Word Pvt. Ltd., and eventually to Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner’s case is that these changes altered only the name of the intermediary, not the reality of his engagement; he remained posted and continued to work at ICAI throughout his period of engagement. The documents on record reflect the succession of these arrangements: Crux Management Services Pvt. Ltd. issued an appointment letter dated 1st April, 2013; G.A. Digital Web Word Pvt. Ltd. issued an appointment letter dated 1st December, 2014; and Respondent No. 2 issued an appointment letter dated 2nd July, 2019, followed by a letter of outsourcing of the same date and an extension letter dated 1st September, 2019.

4. The employment relationship was brought to an end on 4th October, 2019, when Respondent No. 2 discharged the Petitioner from duties with immediate effect from the close of office hours on the same day. The order invoked Clause 9 of the outsourcing letter dated 2nd July, 2019, which restrained the Petitioner from joining any union, resorting to strike, demonstration or agitation, or acting against the interests of the client. It alleged that the Petitioner had violated that condition by participating in strike and demonstrations at ICAI’s premises, instigating others to join him, disrupting normal work and tarnishing ICAI’s image.

5. Before instituting the present proceedings, the Petitioner approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [“ID Act”]. In those proceedings, the Petitioner alleged unlawful termination and a sham contracting arrangement. ICAI, in response, disputed the very foundation of the claim. It asserted that it was not an “industry”, that the Petitioner was not a “workman”, that he had never been its employee, and that no employer-employee relationship existed between them. The said proceedings ended in a failure report dated 5th February, 2021.

Petitioner’s Contentions

6. In support of the petition, Ms. Adrija Bhadra, counsel for the Petitioner, makes the following submissi