W.P.(C) 13006/2026 Page 1 of 5 $~105 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010421092026 + W.P.(C) 13006/2026 & CM APPLs. 60373-60374/2026 KAVITA SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Srivastav and Ms. Pritima, Advocates with Petitioner (in- Person). versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dhananjai Rana, CGSC with Mr. Arvind, G.P. and Ms. Paramjeet Kaur, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. The Petitioner has approached this Court complaining that she was not permitted to resume duties as Nursing Orderly/Multi-Tasking Staff1 at Respondent No. 3, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital2, after being declared medically fit. She was initially engaged by Respondent No. 6, GA Digital Web Word Pvt. Ltd., under an appointment letter dated 20th July, 2015 and was deployed at RML Hospital. The contractor subsequently changed to Raider Security Services Pvt. Ltd. in 2022 and thereafter to Shivalik Housekeeping Services Pvt. Ltd. in 2023. The Petitioner states that notwithstanding these changes, she continued to work at RML Hospital. 2. In April, 2023, the Petitioner suffered injuries and remained under 1 “MTS” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 12:21:20 W.P.(C) 13006/2026 Page 2 of 5 treatment. She states that the ESIC authorities declared her fit to resume work on 21st June, 2023, whereafter she approached the contractor as well as RML Hospital for resumption of duties. According to her, she was not permitted to rejoin and was instead asked by officials of the contractor to pay ₹80,000/- as a condition for being taken back. She complained of this demand before various authorities. RML Hospital eventually responded on 1st May, 2025, recording the contractor’s denial of the allegation and stating that the Petitioner’s contractual appointment was not within the purview of the Hospital. 3. The Petitioner has consciously not sought regularisation or absorption in Government service. Indeed, the writ petition itself states that she was never appointed to any civil post under Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and that her appointment letter, salary and other service documents were issued by the respective outsourcing agencies. Her prayer is nevertheless for resumption or continuation of her outsourced deployment at RML Hospital, or consideration for equivalent outsourced work there. 4. The documents placed on record are consistent with the formal arrangement pleaded by the Petitioner. The appointment letter dated 20th July, 2015 was issued by GA Digital Web Word Pvt. Ltd. and describes RML Hospital as the “contract site”. The power to post or transfer the Petitioner was reserved to the company, as was the power to terminate her engagement in the circumstances stipulated in the appointment letter. The ESIC record also identifies GA Digital Web Word Pvt. Ltd. as the employer. 5. The Petitioner relies upon the fact that she continued to work at RML Hospital despite successive changes of contractor and that her duties were 2 “RML Hospital” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 12:21:20 W.P.(C) 13006/2026 Page 3 of 5 performed under the supervision of officials at the Hospital. That circumstance, by itself, does not establish direct employment with RML Hospital. The Supreme Court in General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal3, relied upon International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers’ Union4 to explain the meaning of “control and supervision” in the context of contract labour. It held that contract labour would receive directions and supervision at the establishment where the work is performed, but such supervision does not, by itself, make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer. The Court distinguished such control over the work from the primary control retained by the contractor, including the right to regulate the employment. 6. If the Petitioner’s case is that the successive outsourcing arrangements did not reflect the true relationship and were merely a device through which RML Hospital continued to employ her, the enquiry is of a different character. It would require evidence as to who engaged and paid her, who exercised the effective control over her employment, who could transfer or discontinue her services, the role played by the successive contractors, and the manner in which the arrangement actually operated. 7. The Supreme Court has recently dealt with this very question in M/s Premium Transmission Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors5. In the context of contract labour, the Supreme Court, while relying on Steel Authority of India Limited and others v. National Union Waterfront6, has held that where the contract is alleged to be sham, or the principal employer- 3 (2011) 1 SCC 635 4 (2009) 13 SCC 374 5 2026 INSC 87 6 (2001) 7 SCC 1 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 12:21:20 W.P.(C) 13006/2026 Page 4 of 5 employee relationship is disputed, the question of whether the contractual arrangement is genuine or otherwise constitutes a disputed question of fact. Such questions are required to be adjudicated by the Industrial Court/Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and cannot ordinarily be determined by the writ Court. 8. A direction requiring RML Hospital to permit the Petitioner to resume or continue work would necessarily proceed on the premise that she has an enforceable right to deployment at that establishment notwithstanding the contractual arrangement under which she was engaged. No such right can be inferred merely from the length of her deployment at RML Hospital. Nor can the same result be reached by couching the relief as one for fair consideration of her request for continuation. The substance of the relief remains restoration of an outsourced engagement at a particular establishment. 9. The Court is, therefore, unable to grant the relief sought against Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the Petitioner seeks to contend that the outsourcing arrangement was a sham and that RML Hospital was, in substance, her employer, she may raise that contention before the appropriate industrial adjudicatory forum under the applicable labour law. That forum would also be competent to examine her grievance concerning discontinuance after medically certified absence, including whether she had abandoned her engagement or was wrongfully prevented from resuming duties. 10. The allegation that a sum of ₹80,000/- was demanded from the Petitioner as a condition for permitting her to resume work is serious. The allegation has been denied and cannot be determined in these proceedings on This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 12:21:20 W.P.(C) 13006/2026 Page 5 of 5 the material presently available. The Petitioner’s remedies in respect of that allegation, as may be available in law, are left open. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, leaving it open to the Petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of any claim which she may raise before the competent forum. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026 as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/09/2026 at 12:21:20