Patna High Court on Outsourced Workers’ Employment Dispute with Power Company

Patna High Court on Outsourced Workers’ Employment Dispute with Power Company

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In December 2023, the Patna High Court dealt with a case involving an outsourced worker of the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. The petitioner had been working through a private agency, M/S Surendra Kumar Agency, and claimed employment-related grievances against the power company.

The petitioner argued that although he was technically employed by the private agency, he was performing duties for the power distribution company on a daily basis. He wanted the Court to intervene in disputes relating to his service conditions and absence from duty.

The dispute arose when, during a surprise inspection conducted by the Electrical Executive Engineer of the company’s Supaul division on 19 August 2017, it was found that the petitioner had remained absent from 12 August to 18 August 2017 without prior permission. On this basis, the company and its officers did not recognize him as their direct employee and argued that disciplinary matters relating to him were outside their jurisdiction.

The company’s counsel highlighted a key point: there was a contract between the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. and the outsourcing agency, and the petitioner was engaged only through that agency. Hence, he was not an employee of the power company.

The High Court agreed with this reasoning. It observed that since the petitioner was not directly employed by the company but only through an outsourcing agency, his grievance could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction against the power company. The Court stated that if the petitioner had any service-related issues, his proper remedy lay before the Labour Court, which has the jurisdiction to address disputes of contract and outsourced workers.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to grant relief.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

  • For outsourced workers: This ruling makes it clear that workers engaged through private agencies cannot directly claim to be employees of the government or public sector companies. Their disputes must be taken to the Labour Court or resolved under the terms of their contract with the outsourcing agency.
  • For public sector undertakings (PSUs): The judgment safeguards PSUs from direct employment claims by outsourced workers. It reinforces the contractual boundaries between outsourcing agencies and the principal employer.
  • For contract law and labour law practice: The case highlights the importance of correctly identifying the employer-employee relationship. Even if a worker is performing duties for a PSU, if he is employed by an agency, he cannot bypass that contractual structure to claim direct service benefits.
  • For legal remedies: The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the right forum for outsourced employees. Instead, labour law forums like Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are the appropriate venues.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

  • Whether the petitioner could be treated as a direct employee of the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.
    Decision: No. The petitioner was an employee of the outsourcing agency and not of the company.
    Reasoning: A contract existed between the power company and the outsourcing agency. The petitioner was hired by the agency, not the company.
  • Whether the High Court should grant service-related relief under writ jurisdiction
    Decision: No. The writ petition was dismissed.
    Reasoning: Since the petitioner was not directly employed by the company, his service grievances fall under the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, not the High Court.

Case Title

Petitioner v. North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors.

Case Number

CWJC No. 4237 of 2018

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 233

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

  • For the petitioner: Mr. Sunny Anand, Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Raushan, Advocate
  • For the respondents: Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

Link to Judgment

MTUjNDIzNyMyMDE4IzUjTg==-thpWqTcDB64=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.

Aditya Kumar

Aditya Kumar is a dedicated and detail-oriented legal intern with a strong academic foundation in law and a growing interest in legal research and writing. He is currently pursuing his legal education with a focus on litigation, policy, and public law. Aditya has interned with reputed law offices and assisted in drafting legal documents, conducting research, and understanding court procedures, particularly in the High Court of Patna. Known for his clarity of thought and commitment to learning, Aditya contributes to Samvida Law Associates by simplifying complex legal topics for public understanding through well-researched blog posts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent News