BRIEF FACTS OF “ARBIND KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF

INDIA & ORS.”

 The petitioners, who have been working as security guards at Vardhman Mahavir
Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital for over 12 years through a contractor, claim
that the government and contractors are unlawfully terminating their services.
 The Ministry of Government of India (Respondent No.1) and the hospital
(Respondent No.2) along with the contractor (Respondent No.3) and another agency
(Respondent No.4) that might take over the services. The petitioners argue that the
termination violates labour laws, as they have been working in essential security roles
for an extended period.
 The petitioners claim exploitation and unfair labour practices, stating that being kept
on a contract for a permanent job is against the law. They emphasize the importance
of their security duties in the hospital, including protecting medical equipment,
patients, and staff. They allege that the contractors have not provided legal facilities,
paid them bare minimal wages which were cut down in the name of uniforms,
training, etc., and gave threats of termination when seeking legal recourse.
 The petitioners state that an undated notice was placed in the hospital which
ambiguously stated that the strength of security guards will be reduced from 1172 to
585 and no explanations were provided regarding the same.
 All the required documents are attached along with the writ petition. They highlighted
a previous court order in a similar case, indicating that contractual employment
should adhere to the law and should not be construed as providing permanence to the
employees.
 The petitioners request the court to set aside and quash the termination of services,
arguing that the nature of their job is permanent, and they cannot be abruptly removed
or transferred to another entity. They assert that the actions of the government and
contractors are against established legal principles.

RELEVANCE OF R4
Respondent No. 4 is an agency to whom Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 intend to
ask to take over the services or responsibilities previously carried out by the petitioners. The
petitioners express concern that upon such action, they would be left at the mercy of
Respondent No. 4.

BRIEF OF THE ORDERS OF “ALL INDIA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS along with NITI TYAGI AND ORS versus UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS” BY JUSTICE PRATIBHA M. SINGH
A series of petitions were filed by contractually employed workers, referred to as
"Workmen," who were working at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung
Hospital. These petitions challenge the termination of their services and bring to light alleged
irregularities in the engagement and termination process.
The petitioners claim to have been initially engaged by Jai Balaji Security Services and have
worked as security guards at the hospital since 2015. However, when a new contractor, M/s
Competent Services (Regd.), took over, the services of these Workmen were allegedly
terminated. The new contractor purportedly informed the workers that unless they paid a
certain amount, they would not be retained by the hospital. It was further asserted that some
of the Workmen had indeed paid the new contractor, and their services were retained by the
hospital.
The legal proceedings began with the court issuing orders in July and August 2020. These
orders impleaded M/s Competent Services (Regd.) as Respondent No. 4 in the case. The
court directed the new contractor to engage the services of the petitioners on the same terms
and conditions and refrain from charging any commission or premium. The court also
instructed that the complete salaries, as agreed in the contract, be paid to the petitioners. The
services of the petitioners were protected from termination until the next date of hearing.
The court took note of a common grievance against contractors charging commissions,
particularly under the guise of a "security deposit." Concerned about the reputation of a
reputed hospital being involved in such practices, the court directed the Secretary, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, to nominate a senior official to investigate the matter and submit a
report.
Subsequently, an Enquiry Officer, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa, conducted an inquiry, and his report
highlighted several gaps in the recruitment process. The report, however, lacked concrete
documentary evidence supporting the allegations. The court received the Enquiry Report, the
Committee's Report suggesting further action, and an Action Taken Report submitted by the
hospital.
The court, on July 23, 2021, was informed that all the Workmen had been reinstated into
service. The Enquiry Report, the Committee's Report, and the hospital's Action Taken Report
were thoroughly examined by the court. The Enquiry Officer identified gaps, particularly in
the absence of documentary evidence supporting the claims made by the Workmen.
The Committee, examining the actions taken by the hospital, observed various aspects. It
found that there was little awareness among the outsourced workers about their dues and
statutory deductions. It also noted that the hospital had suffered a partial disruption in
services due to staff contracting COVID-19, leading to a shortage of administrative staff.
The Committee, after considering the observations of the Inquiry Officer and the hospital's
submissions, concluded that there was no evidence against the hospital staff. It recommended
the dilution of certain observations against the hospital officials. The Committee emphasized
the need for introducing reforms in the system to ensure transparency and prevent corrupt
practices in the engagement of contractual workers.
In light of these findings, the Committee recommended several reforms to be introduced in
all Central Government Hospitals, including Vardhman Mahavir Medical College &
Safdarjung Hospital. These reforms aimed to create a more transparent environment, fix
accountability, and eliminate scope for corrupt practices.
The suggested reforms included:
 1. Incorporating suitable provisions in the Service Level Agreement (SLA) to fix the
accountability of the selected vendor.
2. Verifying educational qualifications and eligibility conditions by the vendor before
engagement.
3. Providing detailed terms and conditions to every outsourced workman.
4. Displaying salary details of outsourced employees to prevent unauthorized
deductions.
5. Exploring the introduction of a biometric attendance system.
6. Undertaking rotational transfers of personnel in sensitive posts.
7. Placing a complaint box in a prominent place for contractual workers to submit their
grievances.
The court acknowledged the Committee's recommendations and emphasized the need for
uniformity, transparency, and consistency in the recruitment of contractual workers. The court
reiterated the steps to be taken by Vardhman Mahavir Medical College & Safdarjung Hospital
and other Central Government Hospitals to implement the recommended reforms.
The court highlighted the responsibility of the Medical Superintendent to ensure that the steps
directed are taken, and the contractual workers are treated fairly. The order recognized the
importance of preventing abuse or misuse of contractual workers and ensuring the proper
payment of salaries by contractors.
Finally, the court concluded that, based on the Enquiry Report, Action Taken Report, and
Committee's findings, no further orders were necessary. The case was disposed of, with the
digitally signed copy of the order on the court's official website deemed the certified copy for
compliance purposes.
In summary, the case reveals a complex situation involving the termination of contractually
employed workers, allegations of irregularities by contractors, and subsequent legal
proceedings. The court's intervention led to an inquiry, and while concrete evidence was
lacking, the case prompted the recommendation of reforms to enhance transparency and
fairness in the engagement of contractual workers across Central Government Hospitals.

Summary of the Facts: ALL INDIA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION VS UNION OF

INDIA & ORS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER 31.07.2020

1. The All India General Kamgar Union, a registered trade union, has filed a writ petition on
behalf of 35 workers employed as Multi-Tasking Staffs (MTS) in Lady Hardinge Medical
College.
2. The workers claim to have been working in the hospital since 2015. However, they were
recently informed of the termination of their services due to the engagement of a new
contractor by the hospital.

3. Mr. Gunjan Singh, the counsel for the petitioner, asserts that there have been no complaints
against the employees, and they were regularly paid salaries through the earlier contractor, Jai
Balaji Security Services.

4. The grievance raised is that the new contractor, Mis Competent Services (Regd.), is
demanding payment from the workers to retain their services. Some employees have
reportedly paid the new contractor, and their services have been retained.

5. Concerned about similar grievances against contractors in various cases, the court directs a
senior official from the Ministry of Health to investigate the matter involving Lady Hardinge
Medical College and submit a report before the next hearing.

6. The court issues a directive specifically for the 35 MTS employees, stating that Mis
Competent Services (Regd.) must engage their services on the same terms and conditions
without charging any commission or premium. The new contractor is also instructed to
ensure the full payment of agreed-upon salaries. The employees' services are to remain intact
until the next hearing.

7. The hospital's counsel is directed to provide copies of contracts with both the earlier
contractor (Jai Balaji Security Services) and the new contractor (Mis Competent Services
(Regd.)).

8. Mis Competent Services (Regd.) is impleaded as Respondent NoA, and the amended
memo of parties is to be filed within one week.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
 After reading and comparing the facts of both cases, the prominent similarity between
the two is that the employees whose jobs have been terminated were working for a
very long period.
 Introduction of a new contractor is the main reason to terminate the job.
 Pay cut was a common issue.
 The employees are left at the mercy of the new contractor, and several employees paid
the new contractor i.e., M/s Competent Services Regd. For retaining their respective
jobs.
 No major factual differences could be taken out