Outsourced workers have no right to re-engagement against the department that awarded the service contract.

The applicant claimed that he had worked continuously as a casual labourer at the Golakganj Gauge Site of the Central Water Commission (“CWC”) and that his services were verbally terminated on 3 November 2021 without notice.

He sought re-engagement and submitted representations before the CWC authorities and the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati.

The respondents contended that the applicant had never been directly appointed by the CWC; rather, he had been engaged by different contractors for outsourced work at various sites between 2012 and 2022.

His wages were paid by the respective contractors, and the CWC had neither issued him an appointment letter nor terminated his services.

The record showed periods of engagement through contractors, interspersed with periods during which he was not engaged, and that an engagement offered in 2022 was not accepted by him.

Whether the applicant, having worked at CWC sites through different contractors, acquired a right to be re-engaged directly by the CWC as a casual labourer.

Whether the CWC could be directed to reinstate or re-engage the applicant when there was no direct employer–employee relationship between the applicant and the Department.

Whether the applicant’s alleged verbal discontinuance from work by a CWC officer entitled him to the relief claimed.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an outsourced or contractual worker engaged and paid by a contractor cannot claim direct employment, reinstatement, or re-engagement against the principal department in the absence of a direct appointment or an established employer–employee relationship.

It further applied the principle that mere continuity or length of service through contractors does not confer a right to regularisation or continuation of engagement, particularly where the engagement was not made through the recruitment process prescribed under the applicable service rules.

The Tribunal also proceeded on the basis that responsibility for engagement or disengagement of outsourced support staff lay with the contractor, not the CWC.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Tribunal examined the engagement records and found that the applicant had been engaged by different contractors, including M/s Puja Enterprise, Subrata Ghosh, Dolphin Security & Advertising, Sathi Security, Akriti Construction and Manpower Suppliers, and other agencies, rather than by the CWC itself.

The CWC had outsourced the relevant work and had not issued the applicant any appointment or termination order; his remuneration was paid by the contractors.

Accordingly, the alleged verbal termination by a CWC officer could not establish a departmental termination or create a right to re-engagement by the CWC.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s contractual relationship was with the contractors and that his continued or intermittent work at CWC sites did not alter that legal position.

Since the Department had no direct employment relationship with him and had not recruited him under the applicable recruitment rules, the requested direction for re-engagement could not be granted.

His prior engagement through contractors did not confer any enforceable right to direct re-engagement by the Department.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit; any pending Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.