Hospital Sweeper’s Reinstatement Claim Fails as P&H HC Finds Contractor Paid Wages, Direct Employment Unproved

The petitioner claimed that he worked as a Sweeper-cum-Sewadar at ESI Hospital, Jagadhri, from 15 September 2008 until his services were verbally terminated on 31 March 2011, without notice or retrenchment compensation.

He alleged violations of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and sought reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages.

The Hospital denied a direct employment relationship, maintaining that the petitioner had been engaged through contractors. The Labour Court rejected the reference, finding that the petitioner had been engaged through contractors and had not proved direct employment by the Hospital.

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

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claims under Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H depend on establishing the relevant employment relationship and statutory conditions.

Under Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1, genuine contract labour does not automatically create an employer–employee relationship with the principal employer; an industrial adjudicator may, however, look behind the arrangement if it is sham, nominal or a camouflage.

Non-compliance with registration or licensing requirements under Sections 7 and 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, does not by itself establish direct employment or automatic absorption.

Under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court does not reappreciate evidence as an appellate court and intervenes where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, patently illegal or affected by jurisdictional error.

The principle in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 13 SCC 292, that an ad hoc employee should not ordinarily be replaced by another ad hoc employee, depends on the nature of the engagement and the identity of the employer.

The Court found that the petitioner’s evidence did not establish direct employment by the Hospital: he admitted that the Hospital had issued no appointment letter; witnesses stated that a contractor appointed him and paid his wages; and the Hospital’s witness and the contractor both testified that he was engaged through the contractor for the contract period.

The petitioner also failed to show that the arrangement was sham or that the Hospital exercised the authority of an employer over him. The alleged licensing or registration deficiencies did not, without that proof, establish a direct employment relationship.

Consequently, the alleged termination and subsequent engagement of other workers did not establish violations by the Hospital under Sections 25-F, 25-G or 25-H; the Labour Court’s findings were supported by the evidence and disclosed no basis for writ interference.

The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.