The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for final adjudication by the CGIT on the issues raised by the Workers and the Employer's right to present relevant office orders before the CGIT for consideration.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 24th May, 2019, in ID No.116/2015 titled G.S. Bisht, State Secretary, BMS Dehradun v. General Manager, CMS, ONGC Hospital & anr., passed by the CGIT, which has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner-Employer (hereinafter 'Employer'), seeking recall/review of the order dated 29th November, 2018. Vide the said order, application of the Respondent seeking interim relief of payment of equal remuneration at par with regular employees of the Employer, during the pendency of proceedings under the Equal Remuneration act, 1976, was allowed.

3. The claim was preferred by the Respondent, representing around 40 workers (hereinafter 'Workers'), who were working on a contractual basis with the Employer. The Workers had filed a claim before the Labour Court alleging that the contractual workers were not being given regular pay and other benefits, at par with the regular workers. accordingly, the CGIT had directed on 29th November, 2018, as under:

'Section 2 (g) of the Equal Remuneration act, 1976 defines remuneration which means basic wage or salary and any additional emoluments whatsoever payable to a person employed in respect of employment or work done. Thus in view of definition of remuneration and judgment of the apex court, the above petition filed by the claimant/workman seeking interim relief of equal pay is allowed. The management /respondent is directed to pay the remuneration and additional emolument to the claimant to this case at par with persons having regular employment and discharging similar nature of work from the succeeding calendar month of this order till final disposal of this proceeding, reserving its right to recover the same from the workman/ claimant in case the workman /claimant would not succeed to establish their claim at the end.'

4. The Employer had a grievance against this order, in as much as on the said date only proxy counsel had appeared for the Employer and submissions on behalf of the Employer were not heard. accordingly, an application for review/recall was filed by the Employer seeking a hearing. The objections on behalf of the Employer were already on record but the aR of the Employer was not available to make submissions on that date. The said review/recall application was dismissed by the CGIT vide the impugned order dated 24th May, 2019.

5. On the previous date before this Court, i.e., 3rd January, 2022, an affidavit was placed on record by ld. counsel for the Workers, to submit that the pay scale for remuneration payable to contractual workers has now been revised in terms of the Office Order (20/2020) dated 22nd October, 2020 and that the Workers ought to be paid pursuant to the interim order, in terms of the said office order. accordingly, counsel for the Employer was directed to take instructions, in respect of the applicability of this Office Order.

6. Today, Mr. Varun Chopra, ld. counsel for the Employer, has relied upon another Office Order (30/2021) dated 16th august, 2021, which is stated to be superseding the earlier Office Order (20/2020) dated 22nd October, 2020. He submits that as of now, the remuneration of paramedical staff on contract has been fixed and is governed by this Office Order (30/2021), dated 16th august, 2021. He also submits that the Office Order (20/2020) dated 22nd October, 2020, is only an office order applicable to regular employees and not to contractual workers.

7. Mr. Yadav, ld. Counsel for the Workers, on the other hand, submits that even in terms of this office order, the Workers are not being paid by the Employer. He further submits that the matter is listed before the CGIT for final hearing on 1st February, 2022.

8. Heard. The impugned order is an interim order of 2018 of which review/recall was sought. The said order has been in operation now for the last two to three years and the matter is also listed for fina