Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yogesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Faridabad And ... on 12 May, 2022
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
(107-10) CWP No. 18798 of 2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 18798 of 2021
Date of decision: 12.05.2022
Yogesh Sharma ...... Petitioner.
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and others ..... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present:- Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
****
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is seeking a directions to the respondents to release his salary for a period of three months from November, 2020 to January, 2021. He has also sought a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in service in the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad ('Corporation' - for short).
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been working in the Corporation and had not been paid salary for a period of three months although he had worked for that period. He also contends that the services of the petitioner have now been discontinued on the basis of alleged misconduct that he had caused an accident while he was under the influence of liquor although he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing.
Heard.
It is settled law that no writ petition would lie against an 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 21:30:04 ::: (107-10) CWP No. 18798 of 2021 -2- outsourcing agency, as it is not an authority in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Reference can be made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nishan Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others, 2014(11) RCR (Civil) 262, wherein it has been held that the service provider who has selected the candidates for work in the government department, is not an agency of the State. The appellants therein were neither selected under any service rules applicable to regular employees of the State of Punjab nor did they apply under any advertisement for their appointment as contractual or regular employees of the state. It was further held that the acceptance of the claim of the appellants therein for continuation of services would amount to a back door entry to public employment in total disregard to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Anmol Garg and another versus State of Punjab and others, bearing CWP No. 29655 of 2018, decided on 28.11.2018, a Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by an employee engaged through outsourcing agency which was upheld by a Division Bench in LPA No. 1910 of 2018, decided on 10.12.2018 and the operative part thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
"Learned Single Judge finding that the appellant was an employee of outsourcing agency which was having a license under the contract to supply manpower held there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the employer and she was not even a contractual employee. The principle being canvassed before us applies only in case there is a privity of contract
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 21:30:05 ::: (107-10) CWP No. 18798 of 2021 -3- between the employee and the employer. In the case in hand, the appellant was an employee of the service provider. The benefit of the said principle is not liable to be extended to her and, thus, we do not find any illegality committed by learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition."
Reference can also be made to the orders of the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of 'Vikas versus The State of Haryana and others' bearing CWP No.19762 of 2018, decided on 11.12.2019, 'Kailash Chand and others versus Urban Local Bodies Department, Haryana and others', bearing CWP No.21345 of 2021, decided on 18.01.2022 and 'Naresh Kumar and others versus Haryana State Warehousing Corporation and others', bearing CWP No.17454 of 2020, decided on 02.12.2020, wherein similar petitions of outsourcing employees were also dismissed.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition, especially when the petitioner was employed through outsourcing agency and was also being paid salary through the outsourcing agency.
Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from seeking recourse to alternative remedy available to him under the law.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
12.05.2022 JUDGE
Ramesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 21:30:05 :::