MUNNA LAL Vs. CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition and the stay application are dismissed vide separate order. I now proceed to record the reasons.

(2.) THE contentions of the petitioners are that they have been working for Central Public Works Department (CPWD) although their wages were paid through contractor despite the fact that vide notification no.SO.707 dated 17.03.1993, the Government of India had prohibited the appointment of contract labour under the category of petitioners. The petitioners were also not paid the same wages and the other statutory benefits as were being paid to the regular employees of CPWD, the respondent. The petitioner had raised the industrial dispute demanding the regularisation in the establishment of CPWD and the said dispute was referred for adjudication to Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma (CGIT) and is pending for disposal. The petitioner learned that CPWD, the respondent is in the process of terminating their services and accordingly, they had moved an application under Section 33 -A of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D.Act'), which prohibits the employer from changing the service conditions of its employees during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings or an industrial dispute. On these facts, following prayers have been made by the petitioners:

(3.) I have heard learned counsels for the parties.