[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Regional Director vs Rashmi Pandey on 12 March, 2026
1 MP-1513-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 1513 of 2026
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Versus
RASHMI PANDEY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
award of CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur dated 23.07.2025, whereby
CGIT has issued following directions:-
"Holding that the management of ESIC has adapted unfair labour
practice with respect to the applicant workman by taking work
from her for years as a contract employee end outsourced
employee on contract when the vacancy is of permanent nature
and is still available, the management of ESIC is directed to
initiate a fair and transparent process for recruitment for the
position on which, the applicant workman has been working,
within six months from the date of publication of award in the
Gazette Appellant Workman shall be granted age relaxation for
the period she has worked on contract basis with ESIC or as
outsourced employee. The management of ESIC shall expedite all
necessary administrative processes to ensure that such longtime
employees are not indefinitely retained on contractual assignments
or through outsourcing, contrary to statutory and equitable norms."
2. The CGIT has therefore ordered the petitioner-Employees State
Insurance Corporation that the management of the Corporation shall initiate
fair and transparent process for recruitment for the position on which the
2 MP-1513-2026
applicant workman was working, within six months of publication of the
award in Gazette and the respondent workman shall be granted age
relaxation for the period she has worked on contract basis with the
Corporation, or as an outsourced employee.
3. The basic facts pleading to the present dispute are that the workman
had filed a claim before the CGIT on the assertion that she was initially
appointed as IT Assistant vide order dated 10.06.2016 on contractual basis of
1 year and the contract was extended from time to time. She was even
transferred from Indore to Gwalior. Since the year 2020-21 the Corporation
has engaged the services of outsourcing company and the workman is being
engaged through outsourcing company and this arrangement continued for
some time, but later on since 31.12.2022 she has not been allowed to work
even through the outsourcing agency.
4. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute, but the Corporation has filed a
petition on the ground that a contractual or outsourced employee does not
have any lien to the post and such an employee cannot seek reinstatement
under the Industrial Law. Reliance is placed on various judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein contractual and outsourced employees have
been held not to be entitled to reinstatement in mechanical manner.
5. However, in the present case, the award is not of reinstatement and
looking to the position that the respondent was an outsourced employee, the
CGIT has only directed that a fair and transparent process be initiated for
recruitment to the post, because there seems to be requirement of work as the
respondent had been engaged for a long period of more than six years. As
3 MP-1513-2026
there is a clear requirement of work, the CGIT has directed the petitioner
Corporation to initiate a process of recruitment by following transparent
method and to grant age relaxation to the respondent for the period she has
worked in the Corporation.
6. Since the award is not of reinstatement, but only to grant age
relaxation to the respondent and to carry out regular recruitment for the post
in question as there appears to be perpetual need of the position, therefore,
this Court does not find any error of law in the aforesaid award passed by the
CGIT, which seems to be just and proper giving no real cause of action to the
Corporation to challenge the said award.
7. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
