In CWP-17749-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC-Contractual employee has only limited rights confined within four corners of contract of employment and it is prerogative of employer to continue or discontinue with contractual services, says P&H HC
Justice Arun Monga [16-08-2022]

Read Order: Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, August 17, 2022:  While dealing with a writ petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that the contractual employee has only limited rights confined within the four corners of the contract of employment and thus, it is the prerogative of an employer to continue and/or discontinue with the contractual services in terms of the contract. 

The Bench of Justice Arun Monga also held, “I am of the view that on the short ground of being a matter of contract, this Court ought not to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.”

The Court was dealing with a petition inter alia for the issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to take the petitioner back in service on the post of plumber and also to pay his back wages.

The pleaded case of the petitioner was that he was appointed to the post of Plumber on contract basis, on monthly salary at DC rate. He was assigned posting and duty under the supervision of the fifth respondent. The contract was extended from time to time. The petitioner’s services were engaged or outsourced through a contractor i.e., the sixth respondent.

His contractual services were later dispensed  with and allegedly, even the salary for one year i.e., from July 2019 to July 2020 was not paid, despite satisfactory work and conduct. Thus, the petitioner moved an advance legal notice-cum-representation but to no avail. Hence, the instant petition was filed. 

Considering the fact that the petitioner’s services were hired on contract, the Court observed that the contractual employee has only limited rights confined within the four corners of the contract of employment. 

“It is the prerogative of an employer to continue and/or discontinue with the contractual services in terms of the contract”, the Court observed. 

In light of the above, the Court was of the view that on the short ground of being a matter of contract, the Court ought not to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Lastly, while dismissing the writ, the Court opined, 
“This Court would refrain from interfering in the domain of the employer’s discretion to engage employees on contract.”