Point of Law: Labour Law – Reinstate the workmen - If legal position had changed, CPWD, being a Government Agency, could not have acted in a manner which is contrary to said order - Correct way of proceeding for CPWD would have been to approach Court seeking a clarification/modification of said order, which they clearly did not do.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 14th December, 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Courts-II, Dwarka District Courts, in ID No. 03/2004. As per the impugned order, the CGIT has directed reinstatement of three workmen with immediate effect, along with back wages and other directions, which is extracted below:

“In the instant case admittedly no permission or approval was sought by the employer in terms of section 33(2) (b). Thus, the contention of the Ld. A/R that by not filing a separate petition the prayer cannot be entertained since, not acceptable. Moreover the Ld. A/R for the management has not denied the fact of alleged termination as no objection has been filed. It is thus, held that the employer during the pendency of this dispute has acted in a manner in contravention of the provision of section 33(2)(b) and the said action is illegal and unjustified and need to be corrected by restoring the status quo of the service condition of the workman at the time of filing of this proceeding.

The petition u/s 33 by the workmen is thus, allowed. The management is directed to reinstate the workmen Ramraj Singh, Rajkumar and Bhupender Singh to service with immediate effect alongwith the back wages from 1st Feb, 2018 till they are reinstated to service. The parties are at liberty of moving the appropriate authority for taken legal action against the management in terms of section 31 of the ID Act.”

3. Vide order dated 3rd June 2021, this court had directed Ms. Bharathi Raju, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner to place a better affidavit as to why there was such a long delay in challenging the impugned order. The same has been filed and is on record.

4. This Court has perused the said affidavit placed on record by the Director General of Works, CPWD. As per the said affidavit, there was a major restructuring exercise which were undertaken in the CPWD, which led to various buildings/offices being shut down across the country, and thereafter reopened. Accordingly, it appears that there is sufficient ground to explain the delay in challenging the impugned award.

5. On merits, the submission of Ms. Raju, ld. counsel for the Petitioner, is that in order for Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to be invoked, the first pre-condition would be that an employer-employee relationship has to be established. The said employees, who are Respondents in the present petition had filed a petition for regularisation which is ID No. 3/2004, which continues to remain pending before the CGIT, and in the meantime, the contractor has been changed by the CPWD leading to the termination of the said employees. In view of the said termination, the impugned order has been passed in the applications under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, moved by the Petitioner.

6. Accordingly, she submits that without the pre-condition of there being an employer-employee relationship having been satisfied, the Application of the Workmen under Section 33 of the ID Act could not have been adjudicated by the CGIT. She submits that the CGIT ought to have first decided the petition relating to regularisation, and only then proceeded to examine the issue under Section 33 of the ID Act.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ld. counsel appearing for the Respondent-Workmen, first of all draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 4th July, 2000, passed by a ld. Single Judge of this court in WP(C) 3381/2000 titled Ram Raj Yadav and ors. v. Union of India, wherein it was directed that the CPWD would not replace the services of the very same Workmen in this petition, with another contract labour. Accordingly, he submits that the termination of the Workmen on 1st February, 2018 in this case by the Petitioner, when a new contra