Vinod Kumar Gupta v. G V K Emergency Management And Research Institute

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2176 of 2016 Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o Late Bhogi Prasad Gupta Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Kunwajati, P. O. Bhainsajhar Via Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. G V K Emergency Management & Research Institute C/o New Government Dental College, Opp. Escort Hospital, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Secretary, Government Health & Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Director, Health Service, 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Ms. Meenu Banerjee, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Gary Mukhopadhyaya, Dy.G.A. for the State / respondents 2 and 3 on advance copy. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 16/06/2016 Heard on admission.

The petitioner has approached this Court assailing correctness and validity of order dated 22/04/2016 by which, the petitioner's employer / respondent No.1 has terminated the services of the petitioner. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the termination of services of the petitioner by its employer / respondent No.1 is illegal because the services of the petitioner are still required. It is next contended that contract of service of respondent No.1 with the Health Department of the State Government has not come to an end but it is still continuing. Thirdly, it is submitted that as per the contract of employment, the petitioner has not been given one month's salary or notice in lieu thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in this case, the company has proceeded to terminate services in view of letter dated 22/04/2016 issued by the Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh. As the

employer company has been hired for certain services by the State Government, the employment of the petitioner is not purely private but it is a public employment. Therefore, the respondent / employer is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such, its action are required to be consistent with fairness and also requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner has sought intervention of this Court seeking to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the writ petition is not maintainable because the dispute is purely with regard to private employment. The petitioner is an employee of respondent No.1/ company which is a private company. Merely because it provides certain services to the State Government, in connection with which it employed the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner's employment has a public element. He further submits that all the grievances which are being raised by the petitioner are in the realm of private dispute, for which, the petitioner can seek remedy for specific performance of contract or damages.

4.

Undisputedly, the petitioner was an employee of respondent No.1 which is a service provider. From the pleadings and documents which have been placed on record, it is petitioner's own case that the State Government had hired services of respondent No.1 to facilitate its own working in the department of health and hospitals. However, the petitioner was employed by respondent No.1 and not by respondents 2 or 3.

5.

It is more than clear that services of respondent No.1 where hired by the State Government but that does not mean that all the employees of respondent No.1 have either become employee of State Government or there is any privity of service contract between the petitioner and the State authorities. 6.

There is no public element in the employment of the petitioner. In case, the services of the petitioner are terminated by its employer, it is purely a private law dispute and is not in the realm of public law. 7.

Unless the remedy sought is in public law domain, extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. For any private law dispute, which does not involve State as one of the parties, the remedy lies in approaching the Civil Court either for specific performance of contract or damages on the allegation of breach of contractual obligations and laws.

8.

Though learned State counsel sought to justify that even the termination by employer of the petitioner is justified because the contract of the employer company has come to an end with the State Government, this Court would not enter into the merits of the dispute once having held that the petition is not maintainable before this Court.

9.

In view of above, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable leaving the petitioner to work out his remedy as may be available to him under the law. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti