MANAGEMENT OF CPWD Vs. ABDUL GAFFAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(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 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.

(3.) A dispute was raised by the respondents pursuant to which the Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-42012/209/2001 IR(CM-II) dated 24.10.2002 referred the following points for adjudication: