State instrumentalities cannot use outsourcing as a veil to deny regularization to long-term employees working against sanctioned posts if the nature of work is perennial, the employer exercises direct control, and the initial engagement was made through a transparent, merit-based selection process.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. This common order shall dispose of all the aforementioned petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix and pose an identical question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-5684-2026.

2. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ, especially in the nature of Mandamus, directing the office of respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, who have been working at various posts in the office of respondent-PEPSU for the last 10 to 20 years. A further prayer is made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant all consequential benefits arising from the same.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were appointed on various posts (mechanic, upholster, fireman, driver, conductor etc.) by the competent authority albeit through an outsourcing agency. The petitioners have been working with the respondent-PEPSU for 10-20 years on contractual basis against regular sanctioned posts with their terms being extended year after year. Additionally, the buses plied by the respondent-PEPSU as well as their time table and routes, are prepared by the State instrumentality itself and is common for both the regular employees and temporary employees. In fact, admittedly, the duties entrusted to both sets of employees are interchangeable. As such, there is no difference in the work allocated to them in nature or quantum. Thus, in view of the long service rendered by the petitioners wherein they have been performing the same duties as their regular counterparts, multiple representations for regularization and consequential benefits were made. However, to no avail. Learned counsel relies upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India 2025 AIR SC 296; Vinod Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others (2024) 9 SCC 327; and Shripal and Another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as the judgement of this Court in Hans Raj and others vs. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (CWP-1221-2021 decided on 03.09.2025), to contend that the petitioners are entitled to regularisation.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-PEPSU submits that the petitioners were engaged through M/s S.S. Service Providers, an outsourcing agency, which is thus, their principal employer. Furthermore, it is the agreement between the respondent-PEPSU and M/s S.S. Service Providers that has been extended from time to time, as is discernible from Annexures R-2/2 to R-2/6). The respondents have been remitting monthly payments to M/s S.S. Service Providers, which in turn disburses salaries to the petitioners. It is further submitted that, on certain occasions, the services of the petitioners were reverted to the said agency, resulting in breaks in their engagement with respondent–PEPSU. Accordingly, it is contended that no direct employer–employee relationship exists between the petitioners and respondent–PEPSU. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners cannot claim the relief under the Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees’ Welfare Act, 2016 as the same was kept in abeyance owing to the challenge of its vires before this Court in CWP-4187-2017, titled as Anika Gupta