Hospital Generator Ran With Three New Workers After Contractor Switch, Yet P&H HC Rejects Operator’s Direct-Employment Claim

The petitioner claimed that he had worked as a Peon and later as a Generator Operator at ESI Hospital, Jagadhri, from 2008 until his services were discontinued on 16 July 2013, without notice or retrenchment compensation.

He alleged violations of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Hospital maintained that generator operations had been outsourced to successive contractors and that the petitioner was engaged through them.

The Labour Court rejected the reference, finding no employer–employee relationship between the petitioner and the Hospital.

The petitioner challenged that award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, govern retrenchment, the principle of “last come, first go,” and re-employment preferences, respectively; their application requires proof of the relevant employment relationship and circumstances.

Under Sections 7 and 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, registration and licensing obligations apply to the principal employer and contractor, but non-compliance does not, by itself, automatically absorb contract labour or establish direct employment

Under *Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers*, (2001) 7 SCC 1, a genuine contract-labour arrangement does not automatically create an employment relationship with the principal employer, although an adjudicator may look behind a sham or camouflage contract

The principle in *Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab*, (2007) 13 SCC 292, against replacing one ad hoc employee with another depends on establishing the nature of the engagement and the identity of the employer

Review under Articles 226 and 227 is not a reappraisal of evidence; interference is warranted for perversity, patent illegality, absence of evidence or jurisdictional error

The petitioner’s evidence, including his admission that he had no appointment letter from the Hospital and that contractor Harish Kumar discontinued his services when the new contract commenced, supported the finding that he had worked through successive contractors

Hospital records and alleged PF/ESI deductions did not, without evidence that the Hospital appointed, paid or controlled him as an employer, establish direct employment; nor did the absence of statutory registration and contractor licences prove that the arrangement was a sham

Although the work continued and the incoming contractor engaged three workers, the evidence did not show that the Hospital itself retrenched the petitioner or that it was responsible for the subsequent engagements

The cited re-employment principle did not assist absent proof that the petitioner was the Hospital’s employee

The Labour Court’s conclusion was therefore not shown to be perverse or otherwise reviewable

Finding no perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the Labour Court’s award, the Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications