DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS, C.P.W.DversusREGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (CENTRAL) & ORS.

                                                                     y,
                         [2008] 2 S.C.R. 360


A          DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS, C.P.W.D.
                                  II.
              REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
                        (CENTRAL) & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 1071 of 2002)
B .                     FEBRUARY 4, 2008
        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ.]

           Precedents - Reliance upon - High Court referring to
c   the order of Supreme court without indicating as to how fact
    situation was identical - Also not considering other aspects -
    Hence, order of High Court set aside and matter remitted back
    to it.
         The question which arose for consideration in this                  l
                                                                                 }
D appeal was whether the Division Bench of High Court was
    correct in dismissing the Letter~ Patent Appeal on basis                 ,,
    of the decision of this court in the case of *Surinder Singh
    & Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief CPWD & Ors. by just referring
    to it.
                                                                       ).
                                                                            -
                                                                             ""J:.
E
         Disposing of the appeal, the Court                                  r
        HELD: The Division Bench of High Court except
  referring to an order of this Court in * Surinder Singh & Anr.
                                                                             I'
  v. The Engineer in Chief CPWD and Ors., did not even                       ~




F indicate as to how the fact situation was identi_cal. The                  '
                                                                            ,Jt-
                                                                      -;-
  order in Surinder Singh's case shows that it was about the                 \
                                                                             ......
  entitlement of daily wagers to the same wages as paid to                   l'
  'permanent employees' for 'identical work'. There is no                    i
                                                                             ~
  factual finding in the instant case that the work done was                 '·

G
  identical. Further several other issues like entitlement to
  Cycle allowance, Cost of uniform, Washing allowance,                      ~-
  Increments etc. was questioned on the ground that these            -+
  are payable only to workers who are appointed to regular                  .
  posts. Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider that
H                                360
•-..(
   I




        DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS, C.P.W.D. v. REG.                 361
        LABOUR COMMNR., (CENTRAL) & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]

        aspect also. Thus, the impugned order of the High Court A
        is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High
        Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
        [Paras 3 and 4] [361-F, G; 362-A, B]
            *Surinder Singh and Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief CPWD
        and Ors. 1986 (1) sec 639 - referred to.                   B
             CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1071
        of 2002.
             From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2001 of
        the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 622 of 2001. C
            Ashok Bhan, Asha G. Nair and Shreekant N. Terdal for the
        Appellant.
             Lalita Kaushik, B.V. Balaram Das and Debasis Misra for
        the Respondents.                                            D
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
        parties.
              2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a     E
        Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Letters
        Patent Appeal filed by the present appellant questioning the
        correctness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge.
              3. The Division Bench referred to an order of this Court in F
        Writ Petition Nos.59-60 and 563-570/83 in the case of Surinder
        Singh & Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief CPWO & Ors. dated
        17th January, 1986. Except referring to the order of this Court in
        question, the Division Bench did not even indicate as to how
        the fact situation was identical. As the order in Surinder Singh's G
        case (supra) shows the case under consideration was about
        the entitlement of daily wagers to same wages as paid to
        "permanent employees" employed to do "identical work". There
        is no factual finding in this case that the work done was identical.
        Further several other issues like entitlement to Cycle allowance, H
    362        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 2 S.C.R.


A Cost of uniform, Washing allowance, Increments etc. was
  questioned on the ground that these are payable only to workers
  who are appointed to regular posts. Unfortunately, the High Court
  did not consider that aspect also.
         4. That being so, we set aside the impugned order of the
8   High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh
    consideration in accordance with law. Since the matter is
    pending since long, the High Court is requested to dispose of
    the appeal expeditiously, preferably by the end of July, 2008.
c          5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
    N.J.                                      Appeal disposed of.




                                                                           I
                                                                           )-




                                                                         ~-.