UNION OF INDIA Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule DB. With the consent of the parties this matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in 1970, the respondents were appointed as tent menders who were working under the petitioners. On 20th November, 1995 M/s. G. Keshawan and other tent menders filed OA No. 156/91 in CAT (Principal Bench), New Delhi against the petitioners demanding the pay scales of Rs. 950-1000 as given to skilled traders but was dismissed by the CAT (Principle Bench), New Delhi on the ground that it would not interfere with the pay scales fixed on the recommendations of the expert body. On 4th June, 2001 another OA No. 1445/2001 was filed by the respondents wherein it was ordered that the petitioners may pass a reasoned order regarding the payment of pay scales of Rs. 950-1500 to the tent menders. The petitioners passed reasoned order on 20th February, 2002 stating that in October, 1974 Ministry of Defence, in pursuance of the recommendations of the 3rd Central Pay Commission, set up an Expert Classification Committee according to which the grade of the respondents could not be upgraded as they did not fulfil the criteria for the points rating method. On 23rd May, 2002 another OA No. 762/2002 was filed by the respondents challenging the order dated 20th February, 2992. On 2nd December, 2002 the CAT (Principal Bench), New Delhi passed an order directing the petitioners to declare that tent menders are skilled workers and to provide them the benefit of the skill grade of Rs. 260-400/950-1500/3050-4590, as was being given to the tailors. It is this order dated 2nd December. 2002 of the CAT (Principal Bench), New Delhi which has been challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition.

(3.) The issue pending consideration relates to the tent menders working in the ordinance depot in the army. It is not in dispute that the tailors and the tent menders are similarly situated. The claim of being a skilled worker by the tailors was taken up before the Guwahati Bench before CAT vide its judgment dated 19.10.1995 in OA 158/1994 which was preferred by the tailors. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by order dated 11.7.1996 in SLP Civil No. 2929/1996 the SLP was dismissed. A review petition preferred against the said order by the Union of India was also dismissed on January 28th, 1997. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner had challenged the Tribunal's order by submitting that the Guwahati Bench judgment of the Tribunal was dealt with by a Full Bench of the Tribunal and a view in favour of the Union of India was taken. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since an expert had evaluated the competence of the respondent tent menders and found them to be semi-skilled it was not open to the tribunal to grant them the status of the skilled workers. Before going to the merits of the case it would be appropriate to note that the impugned judgement of the tribunal was delivered on 2.12.2002. The said judgment granted the petitioner Union of India three months' time to implement the judgment. It is stated that the extension of time to the petitioner Union of India was also sought eventually. Further six months' time was granted by the Tribunal to implement the judgment. Without implementing the judgement the order was not complied with during the extended period and eventually led to filing of the contempt petition in the Tribunal. It is not disputed that the order has now been complied with. Consequently, we are in a situation where the tent menders in Guwahati Bench by virtue of the affirmation of the view taken by the Guwahati Bench of the CAT enjoyed the status of the skilled workers whereas the Union of India, the petitioner herein, contends in Delhi such tent menders to be unskilled workers. Taking into account the fact that the judgment of CAT Guwahati was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition and that the petitioner has approached this Court not only after the expiry of the time originally given by the Tribunal but even after the extended period granted by the Tribunal we are satisfied that no interference under Article 226 is called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.