Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection Of Regularisation Bid By Government Press Sweeper Hired And Paid By Outsourcing Firmેણ

The petitioner worked as a sweeper/housekeeper at the Government Printing Press, Kalaburagi, and sought regularisation and service benefits, asserting long and uninterrupted service.

Respondent No. 2 rejected her request, and the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed her application challenging that decision.

Before the High Court, the petitioner relied on attendance records; the State contended that she had been engaged through an outsourcing agency.

The records included an agency communication identifying the petitioner as a housekeeper, attendance sheets maintained by the agency, and a wage slip showing payment by the agency.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that a claim for regularisation against the respondents could not succeed on the basis of service at their workplace alone where the petitioner had not established that the respondents, rather than an outsourcing agency, appointed and employed her.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited.

The evidence showed that Maruthi Enterprises had identified the petitioner as a housekeeper, that outsourcing agencies maintained the attendance records, and that the agency paid her wages.

The petitioner produced no records establishing appointment by, or payment from, the respondents.

The Court therefore concluded that she had not proved an employer–employee relationship with the respondents, making her claim for regularisation and service benefits untenable.

It found no error in the Tribunal’s decision warranting its intervention.

Finding no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s order, it dismissed the writ petition.