This writ petition challenged the lockout of former contractual employees and sought directions to reinstate them or pay dues. The Court dismissed the case, holding that official respondents lacked privity of contract with the petitioners and could not direct a private entity to hire them.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4999/2021
(2 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
(3 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
Years, R/o Bassi, District Tonk, At Present Posted As Filter Operator At Wtp (Surajpura).
(4 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
Office Boy At Wtp (Surajpura).
(5 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
Present Posted As Chlorine Operator At Wtp (Surajpura).
(6 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
(7 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
Years, R/o Thadoli, District Tonk, At Present Posted As Pump Operator At Wtp (Surajpura).
(8 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
Operator At Intek (Bisalpur).
(9 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
Posted As Security Guard At Wtp (Surajpura).
(10 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
----Petitioners
Versus
(11 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
Health Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana for Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
25/11/2022
This writ petition has been filed with following prayers:
“It is therefore respectfully prayed that Lordships may be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direct:-
I. The Respondent No.5 to lift the lockout imposed on the petitioners and allow them to rejoin work in the exercise of their right to peaceful employment. The respondent no. 5 may also be directed to determine and pay the appropriate due wages of the petitioners. Respondent no. one may be directed to ensure that the due wages be paid by Respondent No. 5, else the liability will fall on Respondent No. 1.
II. The Respondent no. 1 through Respondent No. 2 and 3 to oversee that the Respondent No. 5 reinstates these petitioners in their original service with continuity of service, back wages and without changing the
(12 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
employment conditions of the petitioners. The respondent No 1 may also be directed to ensure that Respondent No. 5 provides proper appointment letters, proof of employment and welfare benefits to the petitioners.
III. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the official respondents may be directed to reconsider petitioners for appointment as they have been working with a private company since the year, 2016.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners were never engaged/hired by official respondents; rather, they were contractual employee of the M/s Larsen & Toubro, a private entity which was engaged by the official respondents for operation and maintenance of the Bisalpur Jaipur Water Supply Pipeline. She submits that there has been no privity of contact in between the petitioners and official respondents. She submits that contract of M/s Larsen & Toubro with the official respondents has come to an end with efflux of time which, now, has been awarded to the respondent No.5-M/s GCKC Projects and Works Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are not even working with the respondent No.5 after termination of their contractual employment with the erstwhile contractor, i.e., M/s Larsen & Toubro. She further submits that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a private entity and similarly, no direction can be issued to the official respondents to compel the respondent No.5, a private entity to engage services of the petitioners. She, in support of her submissions, relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court vide order dated 07.07.2021 in case of Prahlad Sahay Ghasal & Ors. Vs.
(13 of 13)
[CW-4999/2021]
Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14618/2020.
Heard. Considered.
Indisputably, there was no privity of contract in between the petitioners and the official respondents as their services were hired by M/s Larsen & Toubro, a private entity on contract basis to discharge the work awarded to it by which, by efflux of time, has come to an end. Since, 15.03.2021, the work of operation and maintenance of Bisalpur Jaipur Water Pipeline is being done by the respondent no.5, i.e., M/s GCKC Projects and Works Pvt. Ltd. which has not employed the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy this court as to their legal right to seek a writ of mandamus against the private entity to employ them or for issuance of a direction to the official respondents to further instruct the respondent No.5 to discharge the work through the present petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/121
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to a private entity to employ specific individuals.
Whether official respondents can be directed to compel a private contractor to reinstate former employees of a previous contractor.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prahlad Sahay Ghasal & Ors. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.Referred¶181
Prahlad Sahay Ghasal & Ors. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14618/2020
Khemraj Mali and others
State Of Rajasthan
Chief Engineer (Urban And Nrw)
Superintending Engineer
Project Manager
M/s Gckc Projects And Works Private Limited
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
