High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This intra court appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 26.3.2025 passed in Writ-A No.3147 of 2025 as well as against the Judgment and order dated 25.4.2025 passed in Review Application No.52 of 2025.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that, while instituting writ petition, the members of the appellant association claimed themselves to be an association of outsourced employees of the U.P. Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The contract agreement was entered into between the employees and the outsourcing agency and the terms and conditions of their services are mentioned in the contract itself. As per the terms and conditions of service, the minimum age for induction is prescribed as 18 years and the maximum age limit to continue in service is 55 years. Taking into account the aforesaid terms and conditions, an order was passed by the then Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. on 21.2.2025 whereby it was directed that those employees who have completed 55 years of age will not be allowed to work any further.

4. Being aggrieved, the association of outsourced employees, instituted a writ petition bearing Writ-A No.3147 of 2025 assailing the order dated 1.2.2025 as well as the consequential orders which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide Judgment and order dated 26.3.2025. Thereafter, a review application bearing No.52 of 2025 was moved and the same has also met with the same fate, vide Judgment and order dated

25.4.2025. The aforesaid orders dated 26.3.2025 and 25.4.2025 are under challenge in this intra court appeal.

5. Mainly two grounds were taken before the learned Single Judge; firstly that the members of the appellant association are outsourced employees of U.P. Power Corporation and secondly that they are discharging the duties in the same manner as the regular employees of the corporation, therefore, they are entitled to the same benefits of service. It has also been pleaded that since the regular employees of the Corporation are permitted to discharge their duties beyond the age of 55 years, as such, the members of the appellant association are also entitled for the same. In addition, it was also contended that the U.P. Power Corporation being the principal employer is under the bounden duty to ensure that the contract employees get their due wages.

6. Learned Single Judge has adequately dealt with the above said contention in the impugned Judgment and order dated

26.3.2025. In fact, the appellant association has failed to demonstrate that there is any contract, directly in between the members of the appellant association and 'the Corporation', which is the principal employer.

7. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the members of the appellant association were inducted on the basis of contract entered into between the outsourcing agency and the members of the appellant association and, therefore, their claim for treating them at par with the other set of persons, i.e., the regular employees of the Corporation is not justifiable.

8. We have further examined another issue viz. whether the members of the appellant association can be permitted by the Corporation to work beyond the age of 55 years. It emerges from record that the upper limit of age for discharge of duties by the members of the appellant association has specifically been mentioned in contract itself which has been entered into between the members of the appellant association as well as the outsourcing agency and it is not the case of the members of the appellant association that the same was not in their knowledge. This plea, therefore, is also unsustainable.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Suresh and another Vs. Food Corporation of India and others reported in (2018) 17 SCC 641, has held in para 7 as under:- "7. In the first place, the appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and FCI; second, when the documents on record showed that the appellants were appointed by FCI Head Load Workers Cooperative Society but not by FCI then obviously the remedy of the appellants, if at all, in relation to their any service dispute was against the said Society being their employer but not against FCI; third, FCI was able to prove with the aid of evidence that the appellants were in the employment of the said Society whereas the appellants were not able to prove with the aid of any documents that they were appointed by FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of FCI except to make an averment in the writ petitions in that behalf. It was, in our opinion, not sufficient to grant any relief to the appellants."

10. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (DB Special Appeal Writ No.1040 of 2021 and other connected appeals decided on 20.12.2021) has held as under:- "This quite apart, there was clear agreement between the Government and the service provider which was essentially for providing the workforce for implementing the scheme. The entire responsibility of providing the workforce was on the service provider. The agreement clearly envisaged that upon completion of the tenure of the contract the workforce provided by the service provider would be withdrawn. In clear terms thus there was no privity of contract between Government and the petitioners. This is not a case of engagement of the employees by the Government on contractual basis. The contract was between the Government and the service provider and if at all it may be an understanding between the service provider and the petitioners. In any case, the engagement cannot be seen as engagement of the petitioners by the Government on contractual basis. Any other view would make the task of the service provider wholly redundant and would also amount to overriding the agreement between the Government and the service provider. The general principle therefore that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by the another set of contractual employees as long as the work lasts cannot be applied in the present case. In the result all the appeals are dismissed. Pending applications if any also stand disposed of."

11. The law enunciated on this issue is that once there is an admitted position regarding employee-employer relationship between any outsourcing agency and the person so employed, the same shall be governed by the terms and conditions given in the contract executed between the parties. In the case in hand, admittedly there is no contract between the members of the appellant association and the respondent-Corporation and, therefore, the privity is clear.

12. We have also considered the order dated 25.4.2025 passed in the review application and it emerges that the grounds taken in the writ petition by the members of the appellant association were reiterated in the review application and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the review application considering the settled proposition of law that the review cannot be resorted to as an appeal in disguise. Further there seems to be no apparent error on the face of the Judgment and order passed by the writ court.

13. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment and order dated

26.3.2025 and the order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. We, thus, completely agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition as well as the review application of the appellant- petitioners.

14. Resultantly, present intra court appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Shree Prakash Singh, J.) (A.R. Masoodi, J.) Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Ram Murti SHREE PRAKASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This intra court appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 26.3.2025 passed in Writ-A No.3147 of 2025 as well as against the Judgment and order dated 25.4.2025 passed in Review Application No.52 of 2025.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that, while instituting writ petition, the members of the appellant association claimed themselves to be an association of outsourced employees of the U.P. Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The contract agreement was entered into between the employees and the outsourcing agency and the terms and conditions of their services are mentioned in the contract itself. As per the terms and conditions of service, the minimum age for induction is prescribed as 18 years and the maximum age limit to continue in service is 55 years. Taking into account the aforesaid terms and conditions, an order was passed by the then Managing Director, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. on 21.2.2025 whereby it was directed that those employees who have completed 55 years of age will not be allowed to work any further.

4. Being aggrieved, the association of outsourced employees, instituted a writ petition bearing Writ-A No.3147 of 2025 assailing the order dated 1.2.2025 as well as the consequential orders which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide Judgment and order dated 26.3.2025. Thereafter, a review application bearing No.52 of 2025 was moved and the same has also met with the same fate, vide Judgment and order dated

25.4.2025. The aforesaid orders dated 26.3.2025 and 25.4.2025 are under challenge in this intra court appeal.

5. Mainly two grounds were taken before the learned Single Judge; firstly that the members of the appellant association are outsourced employees of U.P. Power Corporation and secondly that they are discharging the duties in the same manner as the regular employees of the corporation, therefore, they are entitled to the same benefits of service. It has also been pleaded that since the regular employees of the Corporation are permitted to discharge their duties beyond the age of 55 years, as such, the members of the appellant association are also entitled for the same. In addition, it was also contended that the U.P. Power Corporation being the principal employer is under the bounden duty to ensure that the contract employees get their due wages.

6. Learned Single Judge has adequately dealt with the above said contention in the impugned Judgment and order dated

26.3.2025. In fact, the appellant association has failed to demonstrate that there is any contract, directly in between the members of the appellant association and 'the Corporation', which is the principal employer.

7. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the members of the appellant association were inducted on the basis of contract entered into between the outsourcing agency and the members of the appellant association and, therefore, their claim for treating them at par with the other set of persons, i.e., the regular employees of the Corporation is not justifiable.

8. We have further examined another issue viz. whether the members of the appellant association can be permitted by the Corporation to work beyond the age of 55 years. It emerges from record that the upper limit of age for discharge of duties by the members of the appellant association has specifically been mentioned in contract itself which has been entered into between the members of the appellant association as well as the outsourcing agency and it is not the case of the members of the appellant association that the same was not in their knowledge. This plea, therefore, is also unsustainable.

9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Suresh and another Vs. Food Corporation of India and others reported in (2018) 17 SCC 641, has held in para 7 as under:- "7. In the first place, the appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and FCI; second, when the documents on record showed that the appellants were appointed by FCI Head Load Workers Cooperative Society but not by FCI then obviously the remedy of the appellants, if at all, in relation to their any service dispute was against the said Society being their employer but not against FCI; third, FCI was able to prove with the aid of evidence that the appellants were in the employment of the said Society whereas the appellants were not able to prove with the aid of any documents that they were appointed by FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of FCI except to make an averment in the writ petitions in that behalf. It was, in our opinion, not sufficient to grant any relief to the appellants."

10. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (DB Special Appeal Writ No.1040 of 2021 and other connected appeals decided on 20.12.2021) has held as under:- "This quite apart, there was clear agreement between the Government and the service provider which was essentially for providing the workforce for implementing the scheme. The entire responsibility of providing the workforce was on the service provider. The agreement clearly envisaged that upon completion of the tenure of the contract the workforce provided by the service provider would be withdrawn. In clear terms thus there was no privity of contract between Government and the petitioners. This is not a case of engagement of the employees by the Government on contractual basis. The contract was between the Government and the service provider and if at all it may be an understanding between the service provider and the petitioners. In any case, the engagement cannot be seen as engagement of the petitioners by the Government on contractual basis. Any other view would make the task of the service provider wholly redundant and would also amount to overriding the agreement between the Government and the service provider. The general principle therefore that one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by the another set of contractual employees as long as the work lasts cannot be applied in the present case. In the result all the appeals are dismissed. Pending applications if any also stand disposed of."

11. The law enunciated on this issue is that once there is an admitted position regarding employee-employer relationship between any outsourcing agency and the person so employed, the same shall be governed by the terms and conditions given in the contract executed between the parties. In the case in hand, admittedly there is no contract between the members of the appellant association and the respondent-Corporation and, therefore, the privity is clear.

12. We have also considered the order dated 25.4.2025 passed in the review application and it emerges that the grounds taken in the writ petition by the members of the appellant association were reiterated in the review application and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the review application considering the settled proposition of law that the review cannot be resorted to as an appeal in disguise. Further there seems to be no apparent error on the face of the Judgment and order passed by the writ court.

13. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment and order dated

26.3.2025 and the order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. We, thus, completely agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition as well as the review application of the appellant- petitioners.

14. Resultantly, present intra court appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Shree Prakash Singh, J.) (A.R. Masoodi, J.) Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Ram Murti SHREE PRAKASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench