KANISHK SHARMA Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by a total of 30 petitioners. The petitioners were employed by respondent no.2-M/s JMD Consultants. Respondent no.2 is a private employer which employs persons for placement with other employers. Petitioners as employees of respondent no.2 were put at the disposal of the respondent no.1-UGC. Petitioners claim that the veil of employment be lifted and actually petitioners should be held as employees of the respondent no.1/UGC. Out of 30 petitioners most of the petitioners have worked as clerks for about 2 to 3 years whereas one or two petitioners have worked for about 5-7 years. The petitioners contend that actually they having worked for the respondent no.1-UGC and which is basically the Union of India/arm of the State, therefore, they are entitled to benefits as employees of the Union of India/State. Petitioners also contend that as per their contractual employment letters, their services have been renewed for 11 months from 22.1.2013, and therefore, the action of the respondent no.2 in directing the petitioners to report to DMRC instead of the respondent no.1 is illegal and violative of law because DMRC is in fact asking for a performance bond of Rs. 25,000/- from each of the petitioners. It is also argued that the salary which would be paid to the petitioners by DMRC would be lesser than the salary which was being paid to the petitioners when they were placed with the respondent no.1.

(2.) DURING the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon two judgments of the Supreme Court. The first judgment is in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (1982) 3 SCC 235. Para-10 of this judgment is relied upon for the proposition that even if the workers are employees of a private organization they should in fact be treated as employees of the alleged principal employer/Union of India. Para 10 of the judgment which is relied upon reads as under:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments has submitted a vernacular/Hindi document and which is a response of an RTI query and in which the respondent no.1 has stated that the petitioners have been directed to be removed from placement with the respondent no.1 and which is false becaue petitioners satisfactorily served with respondent no.1. For completion of narration it may also be stated that the response to the RTI query by the respondent no.1 states that the petitioners are employees not of the respondent no.1 but of the respondent no.2.