Outsourcing employees lack locus standi to seek legal remedies against the government department they serve, as their employer-employee relationship exists solely with the outsourcing agency, and their engagement is governed by the contract between the agency and the state.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“ … to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Lr.Rc.No.A2/178/2025, dated 27.02.2026 to the 5th respondent to take action against the petitioners in pursuance of the enquiry report in Lr.Rc.No.A2/178/2025, dated 09.02.2026 submitted by the 6th respondent, without issuing any notice or opportunity or without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and against to the orders, dated 07.10.2025 in W.P.No.30486 of 2025 of the Hon’ble High Court and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same, and …..”

Heard Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T. Venkat Raju Goud, learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6, Ms. Swapna Madhuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 7 and Sri K. Buchi Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.8. Perused the record.

The petitioners are challenging the action of respondent No.4 in directing the respondent No.5 to take appropriate action against the petitioners as per enquiry report of respondent No.6. The petitioners are providing services in the capacity of outsourcing employees in their respective posts under respondent No.7 ESI Dispensary in the year 2022 deputed by respondent No.9 pursuant to agreement entered with respondent No.6. The petitioner No.1 as Lab Technician and petitioner No.2 as Senior Assistant provided services without any interruption from the date of appointment. The respondent No.4 allotted outsourcing work to respondent No.8 agency in the year 2024 and the same was questioned before this Court vide W.P.No.6287 of 2024. This Court vide orders dated 21.09.2024 suspended the work allotted to respondent No.8. On the complaint of respondent No.8, the respondent No.4 issued letter to respondent No.6 to conduct enquiry into the attendance of the petitioners in respondent No.7 Dispensary. The respondent No.6 without issuing notice to the petitioners unilaterally submitted a report dated 09.02.2026 to respondent No.4 alleging absence of the petitioners exceeding the sanctioned casual leaves. The respondent No.4 in turn addressed the impugned letter dated 27.02.2026 to respondent No.5 directing to take action against the petitioners as per the enquiry report of respondent No.6. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.8 is pressurizing respondent No.4 to remove the petitioners from the services to enable appointment of its own employees in respondent No.7. As per orders of this Court in W.P.No.30486 of 2025, dated 07.10.2025, the petitioners have been continuing in their respective posts. As the respondents are not paying the salaries to the petitioners, they have filed C.C.No.3108 of 2025 before this Court. The petitioners are absent for their duties due to medical grounds and other personal problems and the same was informed to respondent No.7 from time to time and submitted documentary evidence to that effect. According to the petitioners, the enquiry report submitted by respondent No.6 is against the principles of natural justice and hence, respondent No.4 ought not to have considered the same in issuing the impugned letter dated 27.02.2026.

The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter stating that as per the complaint made by respondent No.8, they have conducted enquiry and scrutinized all the documents and finally found that petitioner No.1 was irregular in attendance since January, 2025 to December, 2025. In addition, they have also made discrete enquiry with respondent No.6 and other subordinate authority and after obtaining the clarification only, they have issued impugned proceedings dated 27.02.2026. Respondent No.8 is outsourcing agency for the period of 2025-26 and as per the complaint given by them