General of Works, C.P.W.D. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner,'(Central) &
Ors  Insc 126 (4
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
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
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.
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.
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Pages: 1 2