Shri Bhoop Singh & Ors. vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2335 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) Nos.6483/2014 & 4488/2014

%                                                   19th March, 2015

1.   W.P.(C) No.6483/2014

SHRI BHOOP SINGH & ORS.                               ..... Petitioners
                  Through:          Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate.

                         versus

CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR NORTH EASTERN
ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.         ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anant Parkash, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC for respondent No.2.

2.   W.P.(C) No.4488/2014

SH. BHOOP SINGH & ORS.                                ..... Petitioners
                   Through:         Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate.

                         versus

CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NORTH EASTERN
ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.         ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Senior Advocate
                          with Mr. Anant Parkash, Advocate for
                          respondent No.1.
                          Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC for
                          respondent No.2.




 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

W.P.(C) No.6483/2014

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, petitioners who were appointed as security guards by the

respondent no.1/North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd (NEEPCO

Ltd.), seek the relief that they be taken back in service and that the orders of

the respondent no.1 not to extend the contractual appointments of the

petitioners are to be quashed as being illegal. It is the contention of the

petitioners that respondent no.1 is bound to keep on extending the contract

and services of the petitioners cannot be replaced by outsourcing the work of

security to an outside agency.

2. Essentially reliance is placed by the petitioners upon the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors.

etc. etc. Vs. Piara Singh and Ors. etc. etc. (1992) 4 SCC 118 which states

that one contractual employee or one casual labourer cannot be replaced by

another contractual employee or casual labourer. Reliance is also placed by

the petitioners upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of

Narinder Singh Ahuja and Ors. Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and

Family Welfare and Ors. in W.P.(C) No.1741/2014 decided on 3.11.2014 to

argue that contractual employees cannot be replaced by outsourcing the

contractual jobs.

3. There is no dispute to the proposition of law that one set of

contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual

employees on similar terms, however, there is no law that if petitioners are

only contractual employees, petitioners cannot be replaced by other

employees whose terms of engagement are wholly different inasmuch as

appointment of security guards by the respondent no.1 is not now on

contractual basis but by employing a security agency to do the security

work.

4.(i). The Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Mohd. Abdul

Kadir and Anr. Vs. Director General of Police, Assam and Ors. (2009) 6

SCC 611 has held that employees appointed for a project have to be

necessarily continued till the project continues although such employees are

contractually appointed and such contractual employees cannot be

terminated from services merely on account of completion of the contractual

period of employment although the project itself continues. In the present

case admittedly it is not the factual position that the petitioners were

employed in a project and the project is continuing, and only in which case

petitioners would have claimed extension of contractual tenure till

completion of the project.

(ii). In the case of Narinder Singh Ahuja (supra) which is relied

upon by the petitioners, it is noted that the petitioners in that case were

specifically appointed for a project for World Bank/GFATM assisted

Revised Nation T.B. Control Programme (RNTCP) project. Such

employees in that case had worked from the year 2002 onwards by their

contracts being renewed every year, and, their contracts were sought to be

terminated after the extended contractual period after many years on the

ground of outsourcing the work, although the project was continuing and the

funding of the project continued. In these facts, the Division Bench of this

Court held that once the project continues and the petitioners had for many

years got regular renewals for contractual terms because the project had

continued, therefore, petitioners in that case could not have been terminated

from services by being replaced by outsourced employees. In fact, the

Division Bench of this Court in para 13 of the judgment in the case of

Narinder Singh Ahuja (supra) has referred to the policy of the project

under which it is clearly specified that all the contractual staff appointed for

one year at a time will have their contracts renewed year to year till the

project existed unless of course the services of the employees were found to

be not satisfactory.

(iii) In fact, even in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir and Anr.

(supra) the Supreme Court has said that employees have to continue in the

project although they are only contractually employed for terms, however,

on ground of indiscipline etc such employee can always be removed even if

the project continues.

5. As already stated, in the present case, the petitioners are not

employed against a project. The petitioners were also appointed only for

contractual terms from 1.4.2009 till extensions expired on 27.8.2014.

Therefore, the present case is not a case where one set of contractual

employees are being replaced by another set of contractual employees on

identical terms, and, the present is also not a case where employees have

been appointed for a project and their services are terminated although the

project and the funding of the project continues. Therefore, petitioners

cannot claim continuation of their employment and cannot force the

respondent no.1 to grant them contracts of employment and thus effectively

stating that the respondent no.1 cannot change its method of security by

giving security of its organization to a security agency.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the services of

the petitioners have not been terminated by one month's notice as was

prescribed in the original term of engagement, however, this argument is

without any substance for the reason that termination by one month's notice

will apply during the period of contract and not when the contract comes to

an end automatically on expiry of the term of the contract.

7. In view of the above, reliefs which are prayed for by the

petitioners cannot be granted.

8. Dismissed.

W.P.(C) No.4488/2014

9. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, a similar prayer which was sought with respect to petitioners'

continuation of services cannot be granted in view of the discussion given

while dismissing W.P.(C) No.6483/2014. Petitioners have admittedly

claimed that they are entitled to a higher salary than as paid to them as per

their terms of engagement. Petitioners pray that higher salary be given

inasmuch as the respondent no.2 being the Joint Director (Employment),

Director General of Recruitment, Government of India, Ministry of Defence

(sic: Directorate General of Resettlement, Government of India, Ministry of

Defence) through whom petitioners' names were forwarded for employment

to the respondent no.1, has issued guidelines for a particular package of

monetary emoluments.

10. On a query put to the counsel for the petitioners, counsel for

the petitioners could not point out as to how any terms which are fixed by

the respondent no.2 are binding upon the respondent no.1 once the

petitioners have taken engagement on specific terms with the respondent

no.1 in terms of their appointment letters which gave a particular monetary

package. It is not as if that the respondent no.2 is a statutory body,

performing statutory duties of fixing pay scales under a statute such as the

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and it is not the case of the petitioners that the

respondent no.1 is not paying to the petitioners minimum wages which are

payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Therefore since the

petitioners can only enforce either a contract or law to claim a particular

amount of monetary emoluments, and petitioners are already otherwise

getting monetary emoluments as per the contracts and no law is pointed out

which the respondent no.1 has violated as per which the petitioners were to

be given a higher monetary package, the reliefs prayed with respect to higher

monetary emoluments hence cannot be granted.

11. No other issue is pressed.

12. Dismissed.

MARCH 19, 2015                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne