Rambir Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Other
2022 Latest Caselaw 6678 P&H

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH


114                                    CWP-10117-2022
                                       Date of decision : 12.07.2022

Rambir Yadav
                                                     ... Petitioner
                  Versus

State of Haryana and others
                                                    .. Respondents

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:-   Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.

                  ***

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.11.2021

(Annexure P-7) whereby his appeal has been dismissed by the Educational

Tribunal.

Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the

petitioner had been ostensibly employed through an outsourcing agency but for

all practical purposes, he was an employee of the respondent/school. The

school was providing him medical insurance, training, advances, loans etc.

The petitioner had worked for over ten years and therefore, his services could

not have been terminated in an arbitrary manner. He has relied upon the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hussainbhai versus The Alath

Factory Tezhilali Union and others, 1978(4) SCC 257. He further submits

that the matter pertains to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the petitioner

had not admittedly approached the Labour Court.

Heard.

1 of 2

--------

The petitioner had been employed with respondent No.4/School as

a Driver through an outsourcing agency, namely, M/s Shivam Consultants &

Engineers-respondent No.6. The contract with the outsourcing agency had

been terminated, therefore, the services of the employees, who had been

recruited through the outsourcing agency had been discontinued. Merely

because the respondent/School had been providing various facilities to the

petitioner for medical insurance, loan and advances etc., it could not be said

that the petitioner had been engaged directly by the school and was an

employee of the school.

The judgment in the case of Hussainbhai versus The Alath

Factory Tezhilali Union and others(supra) pertains to a case under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while the petitioner in the instant case has not

approached the Labour Court.

In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned

order of the Tribunal whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.

Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. However, the

petitioner would be at liberty to seek recourse to an alternative remedy

available to him under the law.

                                           (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
                                                   JUDGE
July 12, 2022
sonia gugnani

                Whether speaking/reasoned         :    Yes/No
                Whether Reportable                :    Yes/No




                                         2 of 2