- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 12 February 2008
- Bench
- Reva Khetrapal
- Case no.
- LPA 13/2008
Judgment
REVA KHETRAPAL, J FEBRUARY 12, 2008 Rohtash LPA No.13/2008 page no.8 of 8
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 13/2008 % Date of Decision: 12th February, 2008 THE DIR. GEN. WORKS CPWD ..... Appellant Through:Mr.Pankaj Batra, Advocate versus DAVINDER SINGH ..... Respondent Through:Mr. Varun Prasad, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ (ORAL): C.M. No.402/2008 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. LPA 13/2008 and CM Nos. 400/2008(delay) & 401/2008(stay). 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th April, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and upholding the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi(hereinafter called the "Tribunal"). LPA No.13/2008 page no.1 of 8 2. The respondent was initially employed on 26th June, 1982 as a Wireman on muster roll and was posted in the Asian Games, Electrical Division-I, CPWD, Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. His services were terminated but the appellants themselves reinstated the respondent with effect from 23rd November,1991 with full back wages and all the consequential benefits. The respondent is a qualified Electrician with a Diploma from ITI, and he has also licence of Wireman, Grade-II. There were about 50 workers working in his category as Wiremen, who were junior to him, who have been regularized. Specifically the case of Shri Hari Shankar was pleaded, who although was junior to the respondent and was appointed on the muster roll with effect from 30th June, 1982, his services were regularized in the time scale with effect from 31st March, 1993. The respondent, therefore, raised a claim that he too should be regularised in service as a workman with effect from 31st March, 1993, the date from which the services of his junior, namely, Shri Hari Shankar were regularised. 3. The aforesaid dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi for the purpose of adjudication and decision on the following terms:- "Whether the action of the management of CPWD in not regularising the services of the workman Shri Davinder Singh, Wireman w.e.f. 31.3.1993 the date from which the services of his junior Shri Shankar were regularised is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date". LPA No.13/2008 page no.2 of 8 4. The parties filed their written statement on the basis of which evidence was allowed to be led. After receiving evidence the learned Industrial Adjudicator proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence available on record. The learned Industrial Adjudicator passed his award on 13th June, 2006 holding that the action of the appellant management CPWD in not regularising the services of the respondent Shri Davinder Singh, Wireman w.e.f. 31st March, 1993 is neither legal nor justified and also that he is entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 31st March, 1993, i.e., the date on which the services of his junior Shri Hari Shankar were regularised. The learned Industrial Adjudicator also directed that the respondent should be paid all his arrears which accrued to him on his regularisation w.e.f. 31st March, 1993. 5. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid award challenged the legality of the same before the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition, which was considered and dismissed on the ground that the plea that is sought to be raised by the appellant, that there is no scheme at present under which the respondent could be regularised, was never pleaded nor raised at any stage of the case and, therefore, a new plea cannot be allowed to be raised in the writ petition. 6. Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to th
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.