Mali’s Reinstatement Bid Fails as P&H HC Upholds Finding He Was Deployed Through an Outsourcing Agency, Not the College

Kuldeep claimed that Government College, Meham appointed him as a Mali in November 2012 and verbally terminated him in November 2018 without complying with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The college maintained that he had been deployed through M/s Alert Detective Security Limited and that it had asked the agency to replace him after concerns about his work and absence.

The Industrial Tribunal found that Kuldeep had not established an employer–employee relationship with the college and that the college had not terminated his services; it denied relief.

Kuldeep challenged the award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The existence of an employer–employee relationship is determined from the overall circumstances—including appointment, payment, dismissal powers, supervision and control—and no single factor is conclusive; work at an establishment’s premises alone does not establish the relationship (*Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu*, (2004) 3 SCC 514).

Under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, failure to establish registration or licensing does not automatically make contract labour employees of the principal employer; the real relationship must be determined on the evidence, and even abolition of contract labour does not result in automatic absorption (*Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers*, (2001) 7 SCC 1).

Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 concern, respectively, retrenchment safeguards, the “last come, first go” principle and preference in re-employment; their application depends on establishing the relevant employment and retrenchment facts.

A workman asserting 240 days’ continuous service bears the initial burden of pleading and proving it with cogent evidence (*R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer*, (2006) 1 SCC 106).

In supervisory or certiorari jurisdiction, the High Court does not reappreciate evidence as an appellate court; interference is generally warranted for perversity, no evidence, misreading of material evidence or a patent error of law or jurisdiction (*Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan*, AIR 1964 SC 477).

The Court found that the agency’s deployment letter, read with the college’s contemporaneous show-cause notice and resolution requesting the agency to replace Kuldeep, supported the college’s account that he had been deployed through the agency.

The absence of the contract or proof of statutory registration or licensing did not, by itself, establish direct employment by the college, and Kuldeep had not shown that the outsourcing arrangement was a sham or camouflage.

The record also contained no termination order by the college; the resolution concerned a request for replacement through the agency, while the college maintained that Kuldeep had been absent.

In the absence of established employment by the college and retrenchment by it, the claimed 240 days’ service did not establish a breach of Section 25-F.

Nor had Kuldeep shown the circumstances required to establish violations of Sections 25-G or 25-H, including the retention of a junior similarly situated workman or qualifying re-employment.

The Tribunal’s findings were not shown to be perverse or otherwise legally infirm, so supervisory interference was unwarranted.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs; any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.