Regularization of service is not permissible where the engagement is purely contractual, substantiated by written agreements granting commercial independence, and lacking evidence of a formal recruitment process. Disputes regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship are essentially factual and not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri D.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G.Allabakash, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assails the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4986 of 2019. By the said order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent (writ petitioner) and directed the appellants to regularize the services of the respondent as sub-staff or in any such post carrying the same scale of pay as prevalent in 2003, with all attendant benefits.

Factual matrix (in brief)

3. As per the respondent, in the year 2003, the appellants issued a newspaper notification inviting applications for the posts of Caretaker and Helpers, pursuant to which the respondent participated in the selection process comprising an interview and a practical test, and was declared successful. It is respondent’s specific case that notwithstanding such selection, no formal order of appointment was issued; instead, the appellants caused an agreement dated 13.10.2003 to be executed, which arrangement was periodically renewed from time to time.

4. The record discloses that the relationship between the parties was governed by a series of written agreements executed at different points of time. The particulars of such agreements brought on record are tabulated hereinbelow for ready reference:

5. A perusal of the aforesaid agreements reveals that the arrangement between the parties was expressly characterized as one pertaining to “housekeeping and maintenance” of a transit flat/guest house belonging to the appellants. The respondent was designated as “Caretaker” and was entrusted with duties inter alia including maintenance and cleaning of the premises, attending to the needs of occupants/guests, collection of lodging charges, and maintenance of a register of guests.

6. Significantly, the terms and conditions embodied in the said agreements, in clear and unambiguous language, indicate the nature of the arrangement and may be summarized as follows:

a. The respondent was permitted to run ancillary services such as a canteen and laundry for the benefit of guests, with the stipulation that the profits accruing therefrom would be retained exclusively by him.

b. The arrangement was terminable at the instance of either party by giving one month’s prior notice, thereby indicating its contractual and non-permanent character.

c. The agreements did not prescribe any pay scale, increments, working hours, maintenance of attendance, or disciplinary framework, as would ordinarily be applicable to regular employees.

d. There was no provision for deduction or contribution towards Provident Fund or other statutory benefits, which are ordinarily mandatory in the case of regular employment.

e. The agreements did not contemplate or prescribe any age of superannuation.

7. The appellants, on 01.03.2019, issued a notification inviting applications from outsourcing agencies