Free Judgments

Management Of Cpwd vs Abdul Gaffar & Ors. on 14 December, 2015

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. By virtue of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner impugns the award dated 07.03.2006 passed by Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II whereby the action of the petitioner
in terminating the services of the petitioners including one Jai Chand was held to be
illegal and unjustified. The petitioners were held to be entitled for regularisation from the
date of their initial engagement with all consequential benefits within one month. They
were also awarded arrears of wages. Besides that, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded
as cost.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, factual matrix of the case is that Shri Abdul Gaffar
was initially engaged in MRM Project, Nepal and Shri Saleshwar Kamat was engaged in
PWD ED-V on 29.03.1977 and 24.06.1981 respectively. Later, when the project work
was completed both these workmen were transferred to the Mechanical and Workshop
Division as Muster Roll workers. Some workers employed by the CPWD on daily wage
basis filed two writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.59-60/1983 and 563-70/1983 titled
Surinder Singh & Ors. vs. The Engineer in Chief, CPWD (1986) 1 SCC 639 wherein
they prayed for regularisation and equal pay for equal work. Vide order dated
17.01.1986, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents

W.P.(C)527/2007 Page 1 of 21
herein to take appropriate action to regularise the services of all those workers who are in
continuous service for more than six months. Pursuant to the passing of the aforesaid
order, the management regularised about 8982 daily/muster roll workers who were
engaged in different divisions of the department. However, the respondents were not
regularised in their respective posts. As such, a demand notice was served upon the
CPWD by the workmen calling upon the management to regularise their services.
Thereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondents offering to regularise them in a
lower post for which they were suitable and directed them to give their option for any
lower post as per their qualifications in which they desire to be regularised. The
respondents omitted to send any reply to the letter. Vide letters dated 04.07.2000 and
01.08.2000 again the respondents were asked to specify their option but the respondents
refused to accept a lower post. Therefore, their services were terminated with effect from
30.08.2000.

Source: Indian Kanoon

juris