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.