DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS Vs. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges a judgment and order dated 25.09.2001 of the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 5471/2000 which dismissed its Writ Petition. The appellant had sought to challenge the recovery notice pursuant to a certificate issued by the Central Labour Commissioner, demanding deposit in the sum of Rs.4,84,19,918/-.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the Supreme Court by its judgment in Surender Singh v. CPWD, reported as AIR 1986 SC 584, directed payment to daily wagers in the Central Public Works Department, (CPWD) with effect from their initial date of engagements, the same salary and allowances that were paid to the permanent/regular employees of the Government of India. The appellant moved a Review Petition seeking recall of the directions on various grounds; the Review Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 21.03.1997. In these circumstances, several daily rated workmen (totaling 1113), who were to be given the benefit of the directions of the Supreme Court, moved the Central Government Labour Court under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for computation of their entitlements. They were represented by their Union. The respondents/workmen contended that besides the basic salary, which was admissible to regularly appointed employees, they were to be paid allowances, and that the arrears of such allowance, as well as arrears of some portion of the salary due, were not paid. The Central Government Labour Court, by an order dated 20.06.1989, after noticing the contentions of the appellant - including the issuance of an order dated 16.02.1988 by which the difference between wages already paid to muster roll workers and the payment to be made in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court and subsequent revisions,- allowed the applications under Section 33C(2). The Labour Court held that with the dismissal of the Review Petition by the Supreme Court, there was no justification in not giving effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surender Singh's case and that the workmen were entitled to the same salary and allowances as were paid to the employees in work charged permanent establishment. The Labour Court accordingly allowed the applications under Section 33C (2) and observed as follows: -

(3.) IN the above background of circumstances, the workmen's application for execution and implementation of the said order of the Central Government Labour Court resulted in issuance of a recovery notice dated 19.4.2000. This was challenged in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions and submissions of the parts, held that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would be unjustified in going behind the decree arising out of the order dated 17.1.1986 of the Supreme Court. Having regard to the observations of the learned Single Judge, this appeal was dismissed at the first hearing on 8.11.2001. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal through Special Leave ­ CA 1071/2002 before the Supreme Court. On 4.2.2008, the Supreme Court set aside the said Division Bench order and held that there was no factual finding that the work done in the present case by the workmen was identical to that in the case of Surender Singh & Ors.