BHAGWATI PRASAD BHAGWATI DEVI Vs. DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two writ petitions raise common questions of fact and ,law and accordingly they are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners in both the writ petitions are daily rated workers working in the respondent-Corporation and they are seeking relief under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or other directions to regularise their services in the respective units and to pay them equal wages with initial basic pay, D.A. and other admissible allowances at par with regularly appointed employees of the respondent performing the same or similar duties. Admittedly, they have been appointed on daily wages between 1983 and 1986 and they have been working ever since. It is contended by them that despite their continuous service respondent has resorted to unfair labour practice in creating artificial break in service to deprive them of the benefit of continuous service. As they are not being paid equal wages at par with regular employees, this offends their right to equality of pay under Art. 14 and such action is contrary to the provisions of Art. 39.

(3.) The respondent had raised several disputed questions of fact which needed elaborate investigation. This Court by its order dated January 27, 1989, after hearing the counsel on either side, directed the Industrial Tribunal at Delhi to examine the contentions of the petitioners and the stand taken by the respondent, on all issues after providing full opportunity to the parties of hearing including leading of evidence, oral and documentary, and to make a report to the Registry of this Court within six months. Pursuant to the above direction, the Industrial Tribunal afforded reasonable opportunity to both parties. It would appear that both parties agreed that oral evidence need not be adduced (though respondent is now disputing that fact), and both the parties filed documentary evidence. The Tribunal held 12 sittings heard the counsel considered the record and submitted its report dated September 15, 1989. The respondent has filed its objections to the report.