Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS, C.P.W.D versus REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (CENTRAL) & ORS.

Decided
4 February 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 360 · 2008 INSC 135

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 361, margin D

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the present appellant questioning the correctness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge.

p. 361, margin E

3

The Division Bench referred to an order of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.59-60 and 563-570/83 in the case of Surinder Singh & Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief CPWO & Ors. dated 17th January, 1986. Except referring to the order of this Court in question, the Division Bench did not even indicate as to how the fact situation was identical. As the order in Surinder Singh's case (supra) shows the case under consideration was about the entitlement of daily wagers to same wages as paid to "permanent employees" employed to do "identical work". There is no factual finding in this case that the work done was identical. Further several other issues like entitlement to Cycle allowance, A Cost of uniform, Washing allowance, Increments etc. was questioned on the ground that these are payable only to workers who are appointed to regular posts. Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider that aspect also.

pp. 361–362, margin F

4

That being so, we set aside the impugned order of the 8 High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Since the matter is pending since long, the High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably by the end of July, 2008.

p. 362

5

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. N.J. Appeal disposed of.

p. 362, margin C