# Uttar Pradesh Power Corp. Contract Employees Sangh, Lko v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 775
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-20
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 10459 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uttar-pradesh-power-corp-contract-employees-sangh-lko-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50751
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Adarsh Bhushan, Sri Devesh
Vikram

Held:
Contractual
employees
working
under
outsourced agency cannot claim reinstatement
upon termination, even if the termination
followed participation in an illegal strike. No
privity of contract exists with the Corporation in
such cases. The strike in question was in
violation of ESMA notification. Reinstatement
relief is barred under Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Judicial interference is not warranted when
termination follows a strike that disrupts
essential services.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

9 All. Uttar Pradesh Power Corp. Contract Employees Sangh, Lko Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
775

12. Since the service conditions of
the petitioner are not governed by any
statutory provisions, therefore the present
writ petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable
and
is
liable
to
be
dismissed.

13. In view of the aforesaid law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, writ
petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable and thus is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 775
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 10459 of 2023

Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Corp.
Contract
Employees Sangh, Lko ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Braj Mohan Singh, Shikha Singh Gautam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Adarsh Bhushan, Sri Devesh
Vikram

Held:
Contractual
employees
working
under
outsourced agency cannot claim reinstatement
upon termination, even if the termination
followed participation in an illegal strike. No
privity of contract exists with the Corporation in
such cases. The strike in question was in
violation of ESMA notification. Reinstatement
relief is barred under Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Judicial interference is not warranted when
termination follows a strike that disrupts
essential services.

Case Law Discussed:
1. Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs District Basic
Education Officer & ors., 2022 (4) ADJ 535

2. Rajesh Bhardwaj Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2019 (2)
ADJ 830 (DB)

3. Kailash Singh Vs The Managing Committee,
Mayo College, Ajmer & ors., (2018) 10 SCALE
638

Key Legal Point:

Relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to
contract employees under Article 226. Specific
performance of a contract of personal service is
not enforceable under the law unless governed
by statutory provisions.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Braj Mohan Singh,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 and 2, Mr. Devesh Vikram, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos.3 and 5 and Mr. Adarsh Bhushan,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.6.

2. This writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution has been filed by the
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Contract
Employees Sangh, Lucknow through its
General Secretary.

3. It is the petitioner's case that the
petitioner is a registered union of contract
employees, all of whom are employed with
the Electricity Department in the District of
Kushi Nagar, besides the entire State of
Uttar Pradesh. The Managing Committee
of the petitioner by a resolution dated
28.05.2023 have authorized the General
Secretary of the Union, Devendra Kumar
Pandey, to file this writ petition on behalf
of the aggrieved members of the union. It
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
must be remarked at the outset that what
evidently the petitioner means by saying
that its members are contract employees of
the Electricity Department at Kushi Nagar
and all across the State, is that they are
employees of the Uttar Pradesh Power
Corporation
Limited
(for
short,
'the
UPPCL') and the various Regional Power
Distribution
Corporations
functioning
under the control of the UPPCL. This Court
is compelled to understand it this way,
because there is indeed no Electricity
Department of the Government in the State
of Uttar Pradesh.

4. A perusal of the averments in
Paragraph No.4 of the writ petition shows
that the petitioner espouses the cause of
about 167 of its members, who are contract
employees, serving the Purvanchal Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Limited at Kushi Nagar. A list
of these contract employees, numbering 167,
to be precise 170, there being a discrepancy in
the figure between the averment in Paragraph
No.4 and the actual account in the list
appended, is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the
writ petition. The members of the petitioner
association (for short, 'the workmen') say that
they are contract employees, doing skilled and
unskilled work for the last about 10 years.
They have been discharging their duties under
the supervision and control of a certain M/s.
SMM Infratech Pvt. Ltd., represented by its
Managing Director at various KV Sub-stations
within Vidyut Vitran Khand, Hata and Kasya,
District Kushi Nagar. M/s. SMM Infratech
Pvt. Ltd has not been characterized or
described much in its relationship to the
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for
short, 'the Corporation'), but the said party
appears to be a work force supplier for the
Corporation.

5.

Admittedly,
the
workmen
participated in a strike by powermen
serving
under
the
UPPCL
and
the
Corporation as well for 2-3 days between
16th March to 19th March, 2023. The fact
is admitted in Paragraph No.8 of the writ
petition and also in a letter dated
26.04.2023, addressed by the workmen
working at Hata and Kasya, District Kushi
Nagar to the Collector, Kushi Nagar. Along
with the writ petition, a copy of the letter
dated 1st May, 2023 by the Executive
Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division,
Hata, Kushi Nagar, addressed to the
Collector, Kushi Nagar and the SubDivisional
Officer,
Tehsil
Hata/
Kaptanganj,
Kushi
Nagar,
has
been
appended as Annexure No.5 to the writ
petition. There is an averment in Paragraph
No.9 of the writ petition that the letter by
the Executive Engineer acknowledges the
expertise of the workmen in their trade, but
says that they were on strike for 2-3 days.
A perusal of the letter shows that the
Executive Engineer has said that the
workmen participated in the strike on
account of being misguided, leading to
termination of their services by M/s. SMM
Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

6. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has argued that the workmen are
contractual employees and their services
cannot be dispensed with in order to
replace them by other contract employees.
He has relied upon the decision of this
Court in Rajesh Kumar Singh v. District
Basic Education Officer and others, 2022
(4) ADJ 535.

7. On the other hand, Ms. Monika
Arya, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Mr.
Adarsh Bhushan and Mr. Devesh Vikram,
learned Counsel for the respondents, have
submitted that the workmen are merely
contractual employees and cannot ask for
relief, that can be in the form of
9 All. Uttar Pradesh Power Corp. Contract Employees Sangh, Lko Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
777
reinstatement in service. It is urged that the
decision in Rajesh Kumar Singh (supra)
goes directly against the workmen on the
issue. Attention of this Court has also been
drawn to the fact that on 4th of January,
2023, the State Government issued a
notification in the exercise of powers under
sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Uttar
Pradesh Essential Services Maintenance
Act,
1966
(for
short,
'the
ESMA')
prohibiting strike for six months in all
services, amongst others, in the Purvanchal
Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Varanasi
and also the UPPCL.

8. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
the parties, it is evident that the workmen
struck work during the State-wide strike by
employees of the UPPCL between 16th to
19th March, 2023. The strike was illegal as
it was prohibited by a notification issued by
the State Government under the ESMA.
Apart from the fact that the strike was
illegal, this Court takes judicial notice of
the fact that disruption of electric supply in
the contemporary world run mostly on
electrical and electronic gadgets is like
snuffing out oxygen. The three days' strike
had a disastrous impact on the State, which
cannot be trifled. The decision of the
Corporation or the work force supplier to
weed out striking contractual workmen, in
the opinion of this Court, ought not to be
interfered with by considering it what the
workmen say 'a minor infraction'.

9. So far as the right of the workmen
to relief of reinstatement is concerned,
there is no cavil on facts that the workmen
are serving the Corporation on contract. If
the contract is between them and the work
force supplier, there may not be much
privity with the Corporation. However, for
the sake of the present matter, the Court
assumes that effectively the workmen are
serving the Corporation on some kind of a
contract of engagement. They are not
holding any kind of a post under the
Corporation. A contract employee, it is by
now well settled, cannot enforce his rights
against the employer, even in a case of
wrongful determination of his services by
seeking relief that has the effect of
reinstatement.
Reference,
in
this
connection, may be made to the decision of
a Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh
Bhardwaj v. Union of India and others,
2019 (2) ADJ 830 (DB), where it has been
held:

"30. Now we come to Questions-
(2), (3) and (4), which, in our view, can be
dealt with together. In the present case,
terms and conditions of employment,
applicable to petitioner are not challenged
that such terms and conditions are arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 of Constitution
read with Section 23 of Indian Contract
Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act,
1872'') being unfair, unreasonable or
unconscionable, and against public policy.
The order of termination is challenged on
the ground that petitioner has not been
given adequate opportunity of defence and
termination is in violation of principles of
natural justice. It is not in dispute that terms
and conditions are not governed by any
Statute or statutory provision or by any
provision made under any authority of
Statute. Petitioner being in the Cadre of
Manager, his terms and conditions are also
not governed by Standing Orders made by
Employer with respect to employees
governed by provisions of Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
(hereinafter referred to as ''Act, 1946''). In
these circumstances, in the cases like
petitioner, consistently it has been laid
down that employment is simply a part of
contract. If employment is terminated or
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contract of service is terminated, Court
shall not grant relief of reinstatement, i.e.
specific
performance
of
contract
of
personal service, as it is barred by the
provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963
(hereinafter referred to as ''Act, 1963'') and,
therefore, no remedy under Article 226
shall be available since employee, if
complains about wrongful termination of
service, then must avail remedy in common
law by claiming damages.

32. In the present case also,
relationship
of
employment
between
petitioner and CUPGL is purely and simply
an ordinary contract of service which is not
governed by any statute or statutory
provision. In such cases, a contract of
service cannot be sought to be enforced by
Court
of
law
by
giving
relief
of
reinstatement
or
continuance
in
employment as this relief is barred under
Act, 1963."

10. The said view has been followed
by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
Rajesh Kumar Singh (supra), a decision
relied upon by the workmen, which hardly
supports them. In Rajesh Kumar Singh,
the petitioner was initially appointed on the
post of a District Coordinator (Civil) by the
District
Magistrate,
Deoria.
His
engagement was not extended and his writ
petition
against
non-continuance
of
contract failed before the Single Judge and
also in appeal. He was re-engaged on the
post of the post of a District Coordinator
(Civil) by the District Basic Education
Officer, Deoria. The petitioner claimed that
he joined his duties and discharged his
obligations with all sincerity and devotion.
He
was
charge-sheeted
on
certain
allegations. He denied the allegations by
submitting a reply against the charges.
After considering the petitioner's reply in
that case, no inquiry was held against him.
Later on, the petitioner's services were
terminated by the District Magistrate,
Deoria by an order dated 06.08.2021, that
is described in the report of the decision as
an order restraining the petitioner from
functioning on
the
post
of
District
Coordinator (Civil), Deoria. It was in the
context of the aforesaid termination of the
petitioner's contractual engagement by
Authorities of the State that it was held in
Rajesh Kumar Singh (supra):

"15. The Division Bench in
taking the above view in Rajesh Bhardwaj
(supra) case has relied on recent judgment
of Apex Court in Kailash Singh v. The
Managing
Committee,
Mayo
College,
Ajmer and others, (2018) 10 SCALE 638,
where in respect of dispute related to
termination of an employee of Mayo
College, Court held that employment was
governed
by
simple
contract
of
employment and, hence, no relief of
reinstatement
can
be
granted,
but
employee, if wrongfully terminated, may
claim damages.

16. So far as the relief with
respect to reinstatement of the petitioner is
concerned, if employee is terminated or
contract of service is terminated, Court
shall not grant relief of reinstatement, i.e.
specific
performance
of
contract
of
personal service, as it is barred by the
provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963,
therefore, the relief as prayed cannot be
granted."

11. The workmen are nothing more
than employees engaged on contract. They
cannot claim any relief of reinstatement.

12. In these circumstances, no case
for the issue of a mandamus to the
9 All. Ashish Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
779
respondents directing them to permit the
workmen to work and be paid salary is
made out.

13. The petition fails and is
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 779
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 10561 of 2023

Ashish Kumar Pandey & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ram Pravesh Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Siya
Ram Yadav, Sri Adarsh Bhushan

Contractual
Employment
-
Linemen
engaged through outsourcing agency -
Termination
of
contract
for
alleged
participation in strike - ESMA notification
in force - No reinstatement permissible in
case of simple contract of service -
Allegation of stigma not sufficient to
invoke principles of natural justice -

Held:
Petitioners,
being
contract
workers
engaged through a third-party outsourcing
agency and not directly under the Corporation,
cannot seek reinstatement. Their termination
was based on the strike conducted in violation
of the ESMA notification, and even assuming
violation of natural justice, no relief of
reinstatement is legally permissible in a nonstatutory contract. Moreover, the impugned
order does not disqualify the petitioners from
seeking employment elsewhere and is limited to
future
engagement
with
the
respondent
corporation only.

Rajesh Bhardwaj Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2019 (2)
ADJ 830 (DB) and Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs
District Basic Education Officer & ors.,
2022 (4) ADJ 535 - relied on.

Petition dismissed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Mr. R.P. Pandey, learned
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Girijesh
Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1, Mr.
Abhishek
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2
and 3 and Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, learned
Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
thirty contract employees, who were
linemen with the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran
Nigam
Limited
(for
short,
'the
Corporation') and have had their services
dispensed with under orders of approval
passed by the Managing Director of the
Corporation. The petitioners, though thirty
in number, the order terminating the
contract of service in terms of an approval
by the Managing Director, annexed as
Annexure No.10 to the writ petition, sought
to be quashed, relates to the first petitioner
alone. Similar orders relating to the other
petitioners are not annexed.

3. Nevertheless, there is a case urged
on behalf of the petitioners that they have
been dealt like the first petitioner, Ashish
Kumar Pandey with the Managing Director
of
the
Corporation,
approving
the
termination of their contract, with a further
direction that in future, their services will
not be hired by the Corporation for any
work. The petitioners have, therefore,