Director General of Works, CPWD v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
Judgment Date: 2008-02-04
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Director General of Works, CPWD

Respondents

Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central) & ORS.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ashok Bhan
• Asha G. Nair
• Shreekant N. Terdal

Counsels for Respondents

• Lalita Kaushik
• B.V. Balaram Das
• Debasis Misra

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Civil Appeal challenging a Delhi High Court Division Bench’s dismissal of a Letters Patent Appeal (LP.A. No. 622 of 2001) against a Single Judge’s order. The matter concerns the entitlement of daily-wage workers to wages and allowances equal to those paid to permanent employees for identical work, and whether the Division Bench correctly relied on this Court’s earlier decision in Surinder Singh v. The Engineer in Chief CPWD & Ors. The Supreme Court observed that the Division Bench merely referred to Surinder Singh without explaining how the facts were identical, and noted that Surinder Singh dealt with daily wagers seeking equal wages for identical work, whereas there was no factual finding in the present case that the work performed was identical. Moreover, several issues such as cycle allowance, cost of uniform, washing allowance, and increments were raised, on the ground that these benefits are payable only to workers appointed to regular posts. The Court therefore held that the High Court’s approach was deficient and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Given the long pendency, the Court directed expeditious disposal, preferably by July 2008, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Delhi High Court Division Bench erred in dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal primarily on the basis of this Court’s earlier decision in Surinder Singh v. The Engineer in Chief CPWD & Ors., without establishing that the facts of the present case were identical. It highlights that Surinder Singh concerned daily wagers seeking wages equal to permanent employees for identical work, whereas there is no finding in the instant case that the work performed was identical. Moreover, issues such as cycle allowance, cost of uniform, washing allowance and increments—questions of eligibility only for regular-post workers—were not properly examined. Accordingly, the High Court’s approach was misapplied, warranting set aside and remand for fresh consideration in consonance with law and with prompt disposition.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Surinder Singh and Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief CPWD and Ors.	1986 (1) SCR 639	Mentioned Only	The Division Bench referred to this order but did not demonstrate the factual similarity; the present case’s facts differ, and the ratio is not applied.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 360 ## A DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS, C.P.W.D. II. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (CENTRAL) & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1071 of 2002) B . FEBRUARY 4, 2008 ## [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ.] _Precedents_ - _Reliance upon_ - _High Court referring to_ c _[the order ][of ][Supreme court without indicating as to how fact ] situation was identical_ - _Also not considering other aspects_ - _Hence, order of High Court set aside and matter remitted back to it._ The question which arose for consideration in this D appeal was whether the Division Bench of High Court was correct in dismissing the Letter~ Patent Appeal on basis of the decision of this court in the case of * _Surinder Singh_ & _Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief CPWD_ & _Ors._ by just referring to it. l E Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: The Division Bench of High Court except referring to an order of this Court in * _Surinder Singh_ & _Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief CPWD and_ Ors., did not even F[indicate as to ][how ][the fact situation was identi_cal. The ] order in _Surinder Singh's_ case shows that it was about the entitlement of daily wagers to the same wages as paid to 'permanent employees' for 'identical work'. There is no factual finding in the instant case that the work done was G[identical. Further several other issues like entitlement ][to ] Cycle allowance, Cost of uniform, Washing allowance, Increments etc. was questioned on the ground that these are payable only to workers who are appointed to regular posts. Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider that 360 H I' ~ ' -;- _,Jt-_ \ l' ...... '· ~- -+ . •-..( I 361 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS, C.P.W.D. _v._ REG. LABOUR COMMNR., (CENTRAL) & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] aspect also. Thus, the impugned order of the High Court A is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. [Paras 3 and 4] [361-F, G; 362-A, B] _*Surinder Singh and Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief CPWD and Ors._ 1986 (1) sec 639 - referred to. B CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1071 of 2002. From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2001 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 622 of 2001. Ashok Bhan, Asha G. Nair and Shreekant N. Terdal for the Appellant. C Lalita Kaushik, B.V. Balaram Das and Debasis Misra for the Respondents. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a E Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the present appellant questioning the correctness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge. 3. The Division Bench referred to an order of this Court in F Writ Petition Nos.59-60 and 563-570/83 in the case of _Surinder Singh_ & _Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief CPWO_ & _Ors._ dated 17th January, 1986. Except referring to the order of this Court in question, the Division Bench did not even indicate as to how the fact situation was identical. As the order in _Surinder Singh's_ G case (supra) shows the case under consideration was about the entitlement of daily wagers to same wages as paid to "permanent employees" employed to do "identical work". There is no factual finding in this case that the work done was identical. Further several other issues like entitlement to Cycle allowance, H H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. I )- A Cost of uniform, Washing allowance, Increments etc. was questioned on the ground that these are payable only to workers who are appointed to regular posts. Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider that aspect also. 4. That being so, we set aside the impugned order of the 8 High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Since the matter is pending since long, the High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably by the end of July, 2008. c 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. N.J. Appeal disposed of.