Join our WhatsApp Group
Breaking
Wednesday, September 16, 2026 New Delhi Edition
High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Labour Law

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Daljeet Singh & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Outsourced Employees' Deployment in Transport Corporation Doesn't Establish Master-Servant Relationship, Sets Aside Regularisation

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order regularising drivers, conductors and other staff engaged with the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation through a private outsourcing agency, holding that a master-servant relationship must be established through documentary evidence and cannot be presumed merely from the nature of duties performed or supervisory control exercised.

Court
High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Case / Citation
LPA Nos. 1549, 1410, 1556 and 1529 of 2026
Date of Decision
September 10, 2026
Bench
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav
Parties
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Daljeet Singh and others
Relevant Acts & Sections
Principles governing regularisation of outsourced/contractual employees
Area of Law
Labour Law
Headnotes
Drivers, conductors and other staff supplied to PRTC by a private manpower agency sought regularisation after years of continuous service, relying on Supreme Court precedent on long continuous service. A Single Judge had allowed their claims, treating PRTC as their employer; PRTC appealed.

Full Judgment Text

FACTS:

Drivers, conductors and other staff were engaged with the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) through a private outsourcing agency, M/s S.S. Service Providers, under a manpower-supply contract. After working continuously for extended periods, they sought regularisation of their services, relying on Supreme Court precedent holding that ten years of continuous service can warrant regular employment status.

A Single Judge allowed their claims, treating PRTC as their employer for this purpose. PRTC appealed by way of Letters Patent Appeals, arguing that it had never issued any appointment order — even of a temporary or ad hoc nature — to the respondents, whose appointments had been made solely by the outsourcing agency.

COURT'S ANALYSIS:

A Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav held that an employer-employee, or master-servant, relationship cannot be presumed merely from the nature of duties performed or from supervisory control exercised over a worker; it must be established through documentary evidence such as an appointment order.

The Bench stated: "the master and servant relationship needs to be established on the basis of documentary evidence and not merely on the basis of the nature of duties being performed or the supervisory control exercised over the employee."

Distinguishing the Supreme Court's ruling in Jaggo relied upon by the respondents, the Court noted that the respondents in this case were recruited by the outsourcing agency from day one and had never held any official appointment with PRTC itself.

HOLDING:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed PRTC's appeals and set aside the Single Judge's order directing regularisation of the outsourced employees.

Source: LiveLaw, "Outsourced Employees' Deployment In Transport Corporation Doesn't Establish Master-Servant Relationship: P&H High Court Sets Aside Regularisation," September 10, 2026.
Nyay Vidhan
Court Judgments · 2 min read
Decided: September 10, 2026 Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

Daily Briefing
Stay ahead of every verdict. Court updates, landmark judgments and expert analysis — delivered before 9 AM.

Popular: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt