Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 10522
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Michael Zothankhuma, N. Unni Krishnan Nair, JJ
Arabinda Boro – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WA/189/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P J Phukan, A Dey
For the Respondents: Dy.S.G.I.
A contractual employee hired on a daily wage or fixed-term basis has no vested right to regularization. Upon the expiry of the contract, the employer may terminate the engagement and outsource the service, provided there is no illegal replacement by another ad-hoc appointee.
Headnote:(A) Services Law - Contractual engagement - Termination of contract - Outsourcing of services - Appellant engaged as driver on daily wage basis - Contract expired and work outsourced - High Court held that contractual employees cannot claim regularized employment as a matter of right and that the employer is not bound to retain them after the expiry of the contract period. (Paras 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Intra-court appeal - Scope of interference - Held that findings of fact by the Single Judge cannot be disturbed unless perverse or illegal; mere possibility of another view is not a ground for interference. (Paras 11, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was engaged as a driver in the institute on a daily wage/contractual basis from 01-05-2009. The institute decided to outsource manpower services to a private firm. Upon expiry of the appellant's contract on 31-12-2013, it was not renewed, and the appellant was advised to approach the new contractor for engagement. The appellant challenged his non-renewal, seeking regular employment.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the appellant was purely a contractual employee for specific periods. The outsourcing of manpower did not constitute an illegal replacement by an ad-hoc or temporary worker, as the appellant's contract had simply ended. The Court declined to interfere with the Single Judge's order, noting the lack of perversity.
Issues: Whether the termination of a daily wage contractual driver upon the expiry of a contract and outsourcing of service is illegal and whether the employee is entitled to regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: Contractual engagement for a specified period confers no right to regularization. Once the contractual term expires and the employer decides to outsource services, the termination of the individual contract is justified, provided there is no illegal replacement by another individual ad-hoc worker.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts leading to the termination of contractual engagement and the subsequent writ and review petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. analysis of the contractual nature of the appellant's service and the outsourcing process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. legal principles regarding regularization and the scope of appellate interference in intra-court appeals. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. final order dismissing the appeal due to lack of merit. (Para 14) |
ORDER
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J)
Heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The present intra-court appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment and order dated 26-08-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 301/2014. The appellant has also assailed the order dated 12-11-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 155/2022, dismissing the same.
3. The appellant, herein, as petitioner had approached the writ court by way of instituting W.P.(C) No. 301/2024, inter-alia, praying therein for a direction upon the respondent authorities not to oust him from the service as driver of National Power Training Institute, Northeastern Region (hereinafter referred to as “the Institute”) and to allow him to continue as a driver and or to regularize his services against a Gr-III or Gr-IV post in the organization. The appellant had also presented a challenge to a memorandum dated 31-12-2013, by which his contract was not extended further and the work involved was outsourced to M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, Beltola w.e.f. 01-01-2014.
As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was engaged by one M/s Mahesh Travel, Guwahati as a driver and was placed at the disposal of the Institute, Northeastern Region along with a vehicle. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties in the said capacity as an employee of M/s Mahesh Travel, Guwahati. Thereafter, w.e.f. 01-05-2009, the petitioner was engaged as a driver in the Institute, Northeastern Region on purely temporary basis. Such engagement of the petitioner was so effected on daily wage basis and the same was being extended from time to time. The authorities of Institute, having decided to outsource manpower service requisite in the institute, issued an advertisement on 22-09-2013, inviting bids from registered bidders for providing manpower services on contract basis for the institute. In pursuance to the said tender process, M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise was selected as a suitable bidder and vide a communication dated 09-12-2013, a Letter of Award (LoA) came to be issued in favour of the M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise for supply of manpower on contract basis to the Institute at their quoted rates. On completion of the requisite formalities involved, the Institute, vide communication dated 19-12-2013, issued a work order to M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise for supply of manpower service for a period of 01 (one) year w.e.f. 01-01-2014. On the engagement of said M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, a Memorandum dated 31-12-2013, came to be issued to the appellant, herein, informing him that the period of contract of his engagement as driver had ended on 31-12-2013 and as the Institute had awarded the contract involved to M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, for supply of manpower, including drivers, his contract would not be further extended. It was stipulated in the said memorandum that the institute had instructed the contractor to engage the persons who were engaged earlier, on contract basis in the Institute and if the appellant wishes he can contact M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise to engage him. The said aspect of the matter was also stipulated, therein, to have been conveyed to the appellant during the meeting held in presence of the authorities of the M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise.
The appellant being aggrieved had approached the writ court praying for the reliefs as noticed, hereinabove.
Considering the issue raised in the writ petition as well as upon hearing the parties to the
