Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1071 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Director General of Works, C.P.W.D.
RESPONDENT:
Regional Labour Commissioner,’(Central) & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
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
Writ Petition Nos.59-60 and 563-570/83 in the case of
Surinder Singh & Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief CPWD & 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 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, 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
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.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.