Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Rajesh Kumar Slohar And Others on 19 September, 2012
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
CWP No.21255 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ATCHANDIGARH
(1) CWP No.21255 of 2011
Union of India and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Slohar and others
....Respondents
(2) CWP No.22784 of 2011
Union of India and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Ram Murti and others
....Respondents
(3) CWP No.13268 of 2012
Union of India and another
...Petitioners
Versus
Toshi and others
....Respondents
Date of Decision: September 19, 2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate,
for Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondents in CWP Nos.21255 of 2011
and 13268 of 2012.
Pt.Vinod Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondents in CWP No.22784 of 2011.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This order shall dispose of three writ petitions bearing Nos. 21255 of 2011, 22784 of 2011 and 13268 of 2012 filed by Union of India and others challenging the orders dated 4.5.2011, 11.7.2011 and 1.3.2012, respectively, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh CWP No.21255 of 2011 -2- Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), whereby the Original Applications filed by various employees, were allowed and the petitioners were directed to give benefit to the respondents which had been awarded to the similar employees in case of Kiran Pal & Others Versus Union of India & others, 2003(2) S.L.J. 241 (CAT).
The issue involved in these cases is as to whether the respondents-employees are to be treated as employees of the petitioner Department or the employees of the contractor. The Tribunal after recording the finding that the respondents were initially appointed by the petitioner Department but later on they were shown to have been engaged as employees of the contractor and the said contractor was not licensed contractor as required under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, therefore, the respondents employees cannot be treated as employees of the contractor and they are entitled for the same benefit as was awarded to the similarly situated employees in Kiran Pal's case (supra).
Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the aforesaid legal position and has stated that the similar orders passed in case of other employees have been affirmed by this Court in Union of India & another Versus Rajindra Singh & others (CWP No.19583/CAT of 2011, decided on 14.10.2011); Union of India & another Versus Beeran Devi and another (CWP No.14922 of 2012, decided on 6.8.2012; and Union of India and another Versus Mohan Singh and another (CWP No.16244 of 2012, decided on 23.8.2012). However, learned counsel submitted that respondents No.1,2 and 4 in CWP No.21255 of 2011; respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in CWP No.22784 of 2011 and respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP CWP No.21255 of 2011 -3- No.13268 of 2012 were not directly engaged by the petitioner Department and they were engaged through the contractor, therefore, they should not have been awarded the similar benefit as had been awarded to the employees in Kiran Pal's case (supra). When learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to show these facts from the record of the case, then it was found that the respondents employees were engaged initially by the petitioner Department on contract basis and later on they were shown to have been engaged through the contractor. During the course of arguments, it has also not been disputed that the contractor through whom the respondents were employed, was not the licensed contractor. The learned Tribunal in view of the said fact has held that the respondents employees are to be treated as employees of the petitioner Department and they are also entitled to the same benefit as had been awarded to the similar employees in Kiran Pal's case (supra) where the order of the Tribunal was affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the Tribunal while disposing of the Original Application, on consensual basis, filed by the applicants (respondents herein) in CWP No.22784 of 2011, extended the same very benefit as had been extended to the applicants in the case of Kiran Pal's case (supra).
In view of the aforesaid admitted factual position, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
September 19, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH )
vkg JUDGE