Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15580 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha,Mahima Maurya Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against orders dated 27.10.2017 and 12.7.2018, whereby a decision is taken to engage computer operators for the purposes of undertaking work relating to distribution of scholarship to students in different districts of the State.
Petitioner contends that he had been engaged by the authorities of the State pursuant to outsourcing of work to various contractors and that he has been working continuously since 2014. Grievance raised is that someone else has been engaged in his place and the petitioner's working has been interfered with.
Petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement of the Apex Court in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 1 SCR 591 and para 23 thereof has been relied upon.
The observations in Harjinder Singh (supra) would not be of any help to the petitioner's cause inasmuch as the appeal before the Apex Court arose out of an adjudication made by the labour court. So far as petitioner's working is concerned, there is no order of appointment brought on record before this Court. It is not clear as to what was the procedure undergone for engaging the petitioner. It, however, appears that the work of data feeding etc. was outsourced to some private agency. The contention that respondents have acted arbitrarily in the process while engaging other persons, after discontinuing petitioner's engagement, would require adjudication on facts.
A question would arise on facts as to whether a valid contract system was followed, or not, which can be gone into by a fact finding authority, at the first instance. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. National Union Waterfront Workers reported (2001) 7 SCC 1 has been pleased to observe that all such issues can more appropriately be gone into by the 'industrial adjudicator' and writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon certain decisions of the learned Single Judge of the different High Courts, but none of those judgements appear to have taken note of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra).
Leaving it open for the petitioner to raise his grievance before the industrial adjudicator, this petition is consigned to records.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Ashok Kr.