Delhi High Court
The Executive Engineer Cpwd vs Ghanshyam Singh And Ors on 19 February, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.02.2019
+ W.P.(C) No.2934/2012
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CPWD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
GHANSHYAM SINGH AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Manoj Joshi, Adv. with
Mr.Rahul Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner/CPWD impugns the Award
dated 21st June, 2011 passed by the learned Labour Court No.1,
Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in ID No.61 of 2011. By way of
the impugned order, the Court has directed the petitioner/CPWD to
pay gratuity to the twelve respondents at the time of their
superannuation/death by including the period during which they
had worked on muster roll.
2. The undisputed facts which emerge from the record are that
the respondents were initially engaged as Beldars on muster roll
basis during the period from 1979 to 1984 and were subsequently
regularised on different dates during the period from 1991 to 1993.
In 2004, the respondents raised an industrial dispute seeking
regularization from the date of their initial appointment on muster
roll basis, which was referred by the competent authority to the
learned Labour Court. Before the learned Labour Court, the
respondents gave up their relief for regularization and confined
their relief to get gratuity by including their service for the period
during which they had served as muster roll employees. The
learned Labour Court after considering not only the scope of Rule
14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 but also the effect of the
Office Memorandum (OM) dated 14th May, 1968 which was
reiterated on 26th June, 2006, found merit in the respondents' claim
that they were entitled to get gratuity by including their period of
service on muster roll.
3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid Award, the petitioner/CPWD
has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Impugning the award, Mr.Nikhil Bhardwaj, learned counsel
for the petitioner states that the learned Labour Court, while
directing the petitioner to count the muster roll services of the
respondents for quantifying the gratuity payable to them, has relied
on an OM dated 14th May, 1968 without appreciating the fact that
the said OM had ceased to be operative after the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 were notified. He further states that even otherwise,
the said OM only provides for counting the periods during which
the workman is paid from the contingency fund and does not
include the period during which he is paid wages from work charge
fund, as is the case of the respondents who were paid from the
work charge fund while working on muster roll. He, therefore,
prays that the impugned Award be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Joshi, learned counsel for the
respondents while supporting the impugned Award, states that
there is no infirmity in the Award as the learned Labour Court has
not only noticed the effect of Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, but also considered the fact that the DOPT had issued a
detailed OM dated 14th May, 1968 directing inclusion of the period
during which a workman has rendered services on muster roll for
the purposes of gratuity, which position has been reiterated by
issuance of a Circular dated 26th June, 2006. He, thus, states that
the learned Court was justified in directing the petitioner to pay
gratuity to the respondents by counting the period during which
they have worked on muster roll. He also places reliance on the
decision in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Bhagwan Shahai & Ors.
(2015) 216 DLT 404, wherein this Court while dealing with the
claims for pension of similarly placed workmen in the service of
CPWD, had directed continuity of their service on muster roll
while computing the period for which they are entitled to get
gratuity.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance, perused the record. In my view, once the Director
General (Works), CPWD himself issued a circular as late as on 26th
June, 2006 clarifying that gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity
Act, was payable not only to casual workers but also to daily rated
and muster roll workers, there is no reason as to why the
respondents should be deprived of the benefit of gratuity for their
period of service on muster roll. Even otherwise, the Payment of
Gratuity Act does not differentiate in the casual or regular period
of service and in fact includes all types of service. There is nothing
to show that the intention of the legislature was to exclude muster
roll service while computing the gratuity of an employee who is
subsequently regularised. The Act being a piece of Social Welfare
Legislation cannot be interpreted so narrowly so as to exclude the
muster roll service of employees like the respondents who have
subsequently been regularised.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I find absolutely no perversity or
infirmity in the impugned Award dated 21st June, 2011. It is
further directed that in case the gratuity of any of the respondents
has become due during the pendency of the present writ petition,
the same will be released immediately along with applicable
interest in terms of the impugned Award.
8. The writ petition being meritless is dismissed.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 19, 2019/aa
