Uttarakhand High Court
The Executive Engineer (Electrical ... vs Shri Sanjay Singh on 19 September, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Reportable
Judgment reserved on: 27.08.2025
Judgment delivered on: 19.09.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
1. Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2907 of 2019
The Executive Engineer (Electrical Division) --Petitioner
Versus
Shri Sanjay Singh --Respondent
2. Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2909 of 2019
The Executive Engineer (Electrical Division) --Petitioner
Versus
Shri Amit Kumar --Respondent
3. Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2913 of 2019
Central Public Works Department --Petitioner
Versus
Shri Vivek Kumar Tyagi --Respondent
4. Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2914 of 2019
The Executive Engineer (Electrical Division) --Petitioner
Versus
Shri Vijay Prakash --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned counsel for petitioner(s).
Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent(s).
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Since in these writ petitions, common question
of law and facts are involved, hence, they are being taken
up together and are being decided by this common
judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts of
WPMS No.2907 of 2019 are taken into consideration
alone.
2. In WPMS No.2907 of 2019, petitioner has
challenged the impugned reference order dated
27.03.2015 and award dated 07.03.2019 passed by the
learned Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court-Second, New Delhi in
Industrial Dispute Case No.53/2015 Shri Sanjay Singh
Vs. The Executive Engineer.
3. The present dispute concerns the engagement
and termination of Shri Sanjay Singh (hereinafter
referred to as "the workman"), who was working as a
wireman in the Central Public Works Department
(CPWD) through a contractor. One such contract was
awarded to M/s Indian Glass and Electronics, Dehradun,
under which the workman was deployed for routine
maintenance. His wages were paid by the contractor, and
CPWD maintains that there existed no relationship of
employer and employee between it and the workman. The
workman, however, asserts that he had been
continuously working with CPWD since 23.10.2004, and
having completed more than 240 days of service each
year, claimed the protection of the Industrial Disputes
Act. He contends that his services were terminated on
20.11.2012 without notice or retrenchment benefits, and
though he was reinstated on 01.05.2014 upon
intervention of the Conciliation Officer, he was again
terminated on 04.02.2015. He thereafter sought
reinstatement with full back wages and regularization of
service. On a reference dated 27.03.2015, the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II,
New Delhi, adjudicated the dispute and, by award dated
07.03.2019, directed payment of 20% back wages to the
workman from the date of termination till enforceability
of the award, and further directed that he be considered
for reinstatement subject to eligibility and government
policy as laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v.
Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Aggrieved by the
said award, petitioner-department has filed the present
writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has
challenged the impugned award on multiple grounds,
primarily contending that the same is patently perverse
and unsustainable in law. It is argued by the learned
counsel that the Tribunal erred in failing to appreciate
the fact that there existed no relationship of employer
and employee between the petitioner and the respondent-
workman. He submits that the workman was engaged by
a third-party contractor pursuant to a valid tender
process, and all elements of the employment including
appointment, payment of wages, supervision, and control
lay exclusively with the contractor. The petitioner merely
supervised the execution of contractual obligations and
had no role in the employment relationship.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner(s) that the Tribunal overlooked the non-
joinder of a necessary party, namely the contractor, who
was an important stakeholder in the dispute. He also
submits that the failure to implead the contractor vitiates
the proceedings in entirety rendering the adjudication
incomplete and the award liable to be set aside on this
ground alone. The learned counsel also contends that the
Tribunal rendered findings in a cursory and mechanical
manner, relying solely on the evidence of the respondent
without appreciating the documentary and factual record
placed on behalf of the petitioner. The finding that the
petitioner was the employer is stated to be wholly
perverse and unsupported by the material on record.
6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner(s) that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in
applying the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, which pertain to retrenchment.
According to the petitioner-department, these provisions
are applicable only in the context of a valid employer-
employee relationship, which was demonstrably absent
in the present case. As such, the finding that the
retrenchment was void for non-compliance with Section
25F of the Act, 1947, is wholly untenable. It is also
pointed out by him that the award directs the petitioner
to "consider" the respondent for reinstatement subject to
eligibility and prevailing policy. This direction, as argued
by him, is vague and incapable of implementation in the
absence of a recognized employment relationship and
outside the contours of the law laid down in Uma Devi
(Supra). The learned counsel vehemently argues that if
the impugned award is permitted to operate, it would
result in irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioner,
particularly in view of the fact that it has no privity of
contract with the respondent and cannot be burdened
with liabilities flowing from an arrangement entered into
by a private contractor.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent(s)
submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and
deserves outright dismissal. The respondent has been
continuously engaged as a wireman under the
petitioner's establishment since 23.10.2004, completing
more than 240 days of uninterrupted service annually.
His services were terminated arbitrarily on 20.11.2012
without notice, payment of notice pay, or retrenchment
compensation, thereby violating settled principles of
industrial jurisprudence and applicable statutory
protections. He submits that despite satisfactory
performance, the petitioner sought to replace the
respondent with a junior workman immediately upon
termination, reflecting malafide intent. Following
intervention by the Conciliation Officer, the respondent
was reinstated on 01.05.2014, only to face abrupt
termination again on 04.02.2015, allegedly due to raising
demands for minimum wages. This conduct clearly
amounts to victimization and unfair labour practice.
8. He further submits that the learned Central
Government Industrial Tribunal rightly concluded that
the respondent performed regular duties under the direct
supervision and control of the petitioner's officers,
establishing a clear master-servant relationship. The
petitioner's reliance on the contract system is false and
directions and supervision were exercised directly by
petitioner's engineers, rendering the contract nominal
and sham.
9. He also submits that the learned Tribunal's
award dated 07.03.2019 is a reasoned and balanced
decision, following binding precedents of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as observed in the recent judgment in
Jaggo v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2024)
SCC OnLine SC 3826, which decisively supports the
respondent's claim. The Court emphasized that workers
engaged continuously and performing perennial duties
under direct control and supervision are entitled to
regularization, irrespective of their initial temporary or
contractual status. The Court rejected arguments based
on lack of formal qualifications and underscored the
principles of fairness and equity, which demand
recognition of such workers as regular employees.
10. In addition, learned counsel for the
respondent(s) also placed reliance upon the judgment in
Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad reported in
(2025) SCC OnLine SC 221, which strongly supports
the respondent's position. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that termination during conciliation proceedings
without following statutory procedures is illegal. It
emphasized the establishment of a master-servant
relationship, where workers perform perennial duties
under direct supervision, rejecting sham contracts used
to avoid liability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held
that recruitment bans cannot deny long-serving workers
their right to regularization. It directed reinstatement
with appropriate back wages and a transparent
regularization process. These principles resonate
precisely with the facts of the present case, reinforcing
the respondent's entitlement to reinstatement, back
wages, and regularization.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent(s)
submits that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any
perversity or illegality in the award. The writ petition is
thus frivolous, devoid of merit, and liable to be
dismissed, affirming the just and proper award of the
learned Labour Court.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) by way of
his rejoinder affidavit submitted that all liabilities with
respect to the wages, terms of service and termination of
respondent(s), rest with the Contractor alone, since, the
Contractor was awarded work through open tendering.
He further submitted that the petitioner-CPWD has never
retained services of contractual labour directly, and
therefore, the present proceedings against the petitioner-
CPWD are misconceived.
13. Having heard the learned counsels for the
parties and on careful examination of the material
available on record, this Court is of the considered
opinion that these writ petitions are devoid of merit and
that the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court has, after due appreciation of
evidence and application of settled legal principles,
rightly concluded that the respondent-workman was
engaged in regular and perennial duties under the direct
supervision and control of the Officers of the petitioner-
department. This consistent and active supervision
defeats the petitioner's argument that the respondent
was merely a contractual worker with no direct
relationship with the principal employer. The substance
of the engagement and the actual manner of working not
the formal contract must determine the existence of a
master-servant relationship.
14. The learned Tribunal's award dated
07.03.2019 does not suffer from any illegality or
arbitrariness. On the contrary, it reflects judicial balance
and proportionality awarding only 20% of the back wages
and directing the petitioner-department to consider the
respondent(s) for reinstatement subject to eligibility and
prevailing government policy. This measured relief is in
line with the evolving jurisprudence on fairness in public
employment and regularization, as recently endorsed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shripal
(Supra), where the Hon'ble Apex Court held that long
serving workmen engaged in regular functions of the
establishment, and whose engagement was terminated
arbitrarily, deserve at least a fair consideration for
reinstatement and partial back wages.
15. The petitioner's contention that the absence of
the contractor as a party vitiates the award is equally
untenable. The petitioner had ample opportunity during
the proceedings before the learned Tribunal to raise the
issue of non-joinder and to take steps to implead the
Contractor, which it failed to do. No demonstrable
prejudice has been shown that would render the
adjudication incomplete or invalid. The learned Tribunal,
equipped with sufficient material, proceeded correctly in
adjudicating the real dispute between the parties.
16. It is also significant that the second
termination of the respondent occurred shortly after he
and others raised a demand for minimum wages. This
sequence of events lends weight to the respondent's
allegation of victimization and unfair labour practice, an
allegation which remained unrebutted in substance. In
the case of Jaggo (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
recognized that even contract workers performing core
duties under long-term arrangements should not be
subjected to arbitrary disengagement, and are entitled to
a degree of protection and procedural fairness,
particularly when they have served over an extended
duration.
17. Viewed in totality, these writ petitions do not
present any ground to interfere with the learned
Tribunal's well-reasoned award. There is no perversity,
jurisdictional error, or violation of legal principles
warranting invocation of the limited supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
18. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
The impugned judgments and awards passed by the
learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, New Delhi, in these writ petitions, are
affirmed.
19. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.
20. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
19.09.2025
PN
PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.09.19 16:10:14 +05'30'
